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

[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

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.

Your pathetic claim is easily refuted because your excuses are dead on arrival, here is but a small sampling of papers from this list you ignored:

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

Shen et al 2018

"...The results showed that both future climate change (precipitation and temperature) and hydrological response predicted by the twenty GCMs [climate models] were highly uncertain, and the uncertainty increased significantly over time. For example, the change of mean annual precipitation increased from 1.4% in 2021–2050 to 6.5% in 2071–2100 for RCP4.5 in terms of the median value of multi-models, but the projected uncertainty reached 21.7% in 2021–2050 and 25.1% in 2071–2100 for RCP4.5."

======
Luo et al 2018

"Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation...."

======
LaCour et al 2018

"Using lidar and radiative flux observations from space and ground, and a lidar simulator, we evaluate clouds simulated by climate models over the Greenland ice sheet, including predicted cloud cover, cloud fraction profile, cloud opacity, and surface cloud radiative effects. The representation of clouds over Greenland is a central concern for the models because clouds impact ice sheet surface melt. We find that over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer. In addition, all models create too few nonopaque, liquid-containing clouds optically thin enough to let direct solar radiation reach the surface (−1% to −3.5% at the ground level). Some models create too few opaque clouds. In most climate models, the cloud properties biases identified over all Greenland also apply at Summit, Greenland, proving the value of the ground observatory in model evaluation. At Summit, climate models underestimate cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface, especially in summer. The primary driver of the summer CRE biases compared to observations is the underestimation of the cloud cover in summer (−46% to −21%), which leads to an underestimated longwave radiative warming effect (CRELW = −35.7 to −13.6 W m−2 compared to the ground observations) and an underestimated shortwave cooling effect (CRESW = +1.5 to +10.5 W m−2 compared to the ground observations). Overall, the simulated clouds do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed."

============================
There were 502 papers listed combined from the Skeptic papers 2018 three parts links I gave you., ALL of them from publishing journals. There are 489 more for 2017 year....., and more available.

I just gave you almost 1,000 papers that were published in 2016 and later, your excuses are looking stupid now, and that you OBVIOUSLY didn't bother to read into the links I gave you that showed the listed papers were from publishing journals, not originated in a blog at all. It seems you are making poorly conceived lies as well, which is unsurprising as you are a proven science illiterate.

 

[Crick]

Your pathetic claim is easily refuted because your excuses are dead on arrival, here is but a small sampling of papers from this list you ignored:

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

Shen et al 2018

"...The results showed that both future climate change (precipitation and temperature) and hydrological response predicted by the twenty GCMs [climate models] were highly uncertain, and the uncertainty increased significantly over time. For example, the change of mean annual precipitation increased from 1.4% in 2021–2050 to 6.5% in 2071–2100 for RCP4.5 in terms of the median value of multi-models, but the projected uncertainty reached 21.7% in 2021–2050 and 25.1% in 2071–2100 for RCP4.5."

So, models become more uncertain with increased projection. What an incredible facepalm of a surprise!

======
Luo et al 2018

"Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation...."

Most do not? So, some do? They reproduce a subtle phenomenon with no known cause? Yeah... there's a complete failure for you.

======
LaCour et al 2018

"Using lidar and radiative flux observations from space and ground, and a lidar simulator, we evaluate clouds simulated by climate models over the Greenland ice sheet, including predicted cloud cover, cloud fraction profile, cloud opacity, and surface cloud radiative effects. The representation of clouds over Greenland is a central concern for the models because clouds impact ice sheet surface melt. We find that over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer. In addition, all models create too few nonopaque, liquid-containing clouds optically thin enough to let direct solar radiation reach the surface (−1% to −3.5% at the ground level). Some models create too few opaque clouds. In most climate models, the cloud properties biases identified over all Greenland also apply at Summit, Greenland, proving the value of the ground observatory in model evaluation. At Summit, climate models underestimate cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface, especially in summer. The primary driver of the summer CRE biases compared to observations is the underestimation of the cloud cover in summer (−46% to −21%), which leads to an underestimated longwave radiative warming effect (CRELW = −35.7 to −13.6 W m−2 compared to the ground observations) and an underestimated shortwave cooling effect (CRESW = +1.5 to +10.5 W m−2 compared to the ground observations). Overall, the simulated clouds do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed."

Maybe somebody should have checked this one first: "Over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer." The thing is, Greenland's cloud cover HAS been decreasing. See:
Greenland’s shrinking cloud cover speeds melt | Climate News Network
AND
Thinning summer cloud cover responsible for Greenland ice melt
AND
Decreasing cloud cover driving Greenland Ice Sheet Loss | PSI Intl
AND
Glaciology: Cloud loss melts Greenland

and then there's the final sentence in your abstract: "...simulated clouds [ie, clouds in models] do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed". This is saying that reality is getting more warming than the models predict. Hardly a refutation of AGW.

Please! Bring us some more!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Worried!!!

Voters all up in arms about the dangers of global warming....


"Campaign Issues

• 47% of voters support building a wall on the US-Mexico Border, 45% oppose, 8% are undecided.
• 41% of voters do not think large tech giants like Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google should be broken up, 29% think they should be broken up, and 31% are undecided.
• 43% of voters do not support American intervention in Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro Regime, 27% do support American intervention, 31% were unsure.
• 55% of voters do not think individuals currently incarcerated should have the right to vote, 30% believe those incarcerated should be able to vote , and 15% are undecided on this issue.
• 65% of voters think that felons who completed their prison sentences should have the right to vote, 23% do not, and 12% are undecided."
• Emerson Polling

See.....there it is...right....

....oh.....wait........

 

[jc456]

Worried!!!

Voters all up in arms about the dangers of global warming....


"Campaign Issues

• 47% of voters support building a wall on the US-Mexico Border, 45% oppose, 8% are undecided.
• 41% of voters do not think large tech giants like Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google should be broken up, 29% think they should be broken up, and 31% are undecided.
• 43% of voters do not support American intervention in Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro Regime, 27% do support American intervention, 31% were unsure.
• 55% of voters do not think individuals currently incarcerated should have the right to vote, 30% believe those incarcerated should be able to vote , and 15% are undecided on this issue.
• 65% of voters think that felons who completed their prison sentences should have the right to vote, 23% do not, and 12% are undecided."
• Emerson Polling

See.....there it is...right....

....oh.....wait........

so I'd like to know from these loony left is, if they want to give incarcerated felons the right to vote, are they in favor of them having guns? I mean what is the larger danger?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Scientists Recommend Reducing The Number Of Democratic Presidential Candidates To Help Fight Climate Change
April 11th, 2019

WORLD—Scientists have issued a dire warning: the current number of Democratic presidential candidates is simply unsustainable.

“No one ever thought this many people would run for president,” said climate scientist Dr. Raymond Hall, “and the planet just can’t take it. We’re talking each of them eating up resources vying for airtime, printing stickers with trite slogans, and flying from Iowa to New Hampshire. If they were actually all to be in one place for a debate, it would be an ecological disaster.”

Scientists recommend the current Democratic field be reduced to less than half the current number or we could see an increase in hurricanes, droughts, kaiju, and “other climate change things.” As for what to do with the excess candidates, researcher Jeannie Perry said, “As always, I’d recommend firing them into space. Barring that, someone should just sit down with them and explain to them that no one is ever going to vote for them and hope that keeps them from running around consuming resources in a futile effort for presidential power.”

Scientists also have recommendations for the average citizen so they can help. First off, they say to never ever say anything even slightly encouraging to a politician, as they always take that as an impetus to run for president. They also say under no circumstances should anyone give money to a candidate, because that only fuels their destructive behavior. Added Dr. Hall, “It would literally be nicer to the planet to dump a barrel of nuclear waste into the ocean.”
Scientists Recommend Reducing The Number Of Democratic Presidential Candidates To Help Fight Climate Change

 

[SSDD]

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.

I highly doubt that you have spent any amount of time actually looking at the scientific literature...You clearly believe that the AGW hypothesis is supported in the literature, but obviously haven't bothered to look yourself. If you had, you would know that there has never been a single paper written by a research scientist and published in any society journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses. Now in order to support the AGW hypothesis, don't you think that actually measuring, and quantifying the warming that we are supposed to be causing might be a good place to start? Without even that basic research as a foundation, how much actual validity do you think the AGW hypothesis can possibly have?

 

[SSDD]

“… 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.

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Any at all? In every other branch of science, if you question the mainstream hypothesis or theory, you get inundated with actual science that supports the hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get talk of consensus because there is not enough actual science there to even bolster the claim as a hypothesis, much less a bona fide theory.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any good Cult can claim they have "Consensus"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any good Cult can claim they have "Consensus"

Pretty much a description of the audience at those Democrat debates....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“… 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.

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Any at all? In every other branch of science, if you question the mainstream hypothesis or theory, you get inundated with actual science that supports the hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get talk of consensus because there is not enough actual science there to even bolster the claim as a hypothesis, much less a bona fide theory.

AGW Chart

Warming = Global Warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat

 

[Third Party]

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

 

[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.

Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Any at all? In every other branch of science, if you question the mainstream hypothesis or theory, you get inundated with actual science that supports the hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get talk of consensus because there is not enough actual science there to even bolster the claim as a hypothesis, much less a bona fide theory.

AGW Chart

Warming = Global Warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat

I'd say that covers the lot of 'em.

 

[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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

 

[Third Party]

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

"Good hitting always beats good pitching-and vice versa"-Yogi Berra

 

[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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

"Good hitting always beats good pitching-and vice versa"-Yogi Berra

That was neither Lincoln nor Biden.....I see the spelling confused you with the latter.

 

[Third Party]

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

"Good hitting always beats good pitching-and vice versa"-Yogi Berra

That was neither Lincoln nor Biden.....I see the spelling confused you with the latter.

I thought latter was ladder? Anyway, favorite Lincoln quote, "If this is tea, then bring me coffee. But if this is coffee, then bring me tea!

 

[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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

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!!!

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

"Good hitting always beats good pitching-and vice versa"-Yogi Berra

That was neither Lincoln nor Biden.....I see the spelling confused you with the latter.

I thought latter was ladder? Anyway, favorite Lincoln quote, "If this is tea, then bring me coffee. But if this is coffee, then bring me tea!

Are you trying to subtly brag again about the trophies you've won at Chutes And Ladders???

 

[Third Party]

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?

This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....

"Good hitting always beats good pitching-and vice versa"-Yogi Berra

That was neither Lincoln nor Biden.....I see the spelling confused you with the latter.

I thought latter was ladder? Anyway, favorite Lincoln quote, "If this is tea, then bring me coffee. But if this is coffee, then bring me tea!

Are you trying to subtly brag again about the trophies you've won at Chutes And Ladders???

A. I am never subtle, and 2. Isn't it Chutes and Latters?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see what you did there.....

 

[Third Party]

I see what you did there.....

Cute. I actually prefer Easy Money myself, like many other people.