More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[jc456]

They are not and your are a fucking idiot.

nice comeback. What makes his stat wrong?

 

[elektra]

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

haahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhaha

link to the actual study, abstracts are propaganda

CONSENSUS, is propaganda, politics, not science

And, it only takes one scientist to prove 99.999999999999999% of all scientists, WRONG

Of course, we must remind cricket that not one scientist was surveyed, asked, or questioned, as to what their opinion of AGW was.

 

[EMH]

haahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhaha

link to the actual study, abstracts are propaganda

CONSENSUS, is propaganda, politics, not science

And, it only takes one scientist to prove 99.999999999999999% of all scientists, WRONG

Of course, we must remind cricket that not one scientist was surveyed, asked, or questioned, as to what their opinion of AGW was.

Einstein did not say

ALL qualified scientists agree with Relativity
Everyone who denies it is a "insert card toss here"

No

Einstein opened his work, his notes, his data, and said HAVE AT IT

Science is not getting a group of conflicted liars and paying them to fudge data, hide data, and lie about data.

Science is about truth, and the truth is that there is PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE Co2 causes warming or has anything to do with Earth climate change.

 

[Crick]

link to the actual study, abstracts are propaganda

I did. It is there and I just tried i;, it works. For unknown reasons, it id labeled itself "ShieldSquare Captcha. Abstracts aren't propaganda. Every published study has one. They are simply summaries of the studies and their results.

CONSENSUS, is propaganda, politics, not science

Consensus is a measure of the acceptance of a theory.

And, it only takes one scientist to prove 99.999999999999999% of all scientists, WRONG

And a theory or hypothesis proven wrong will not gain a consensus. Once upon a time all science believed that the expansion of the universe was slowing. After 18 months of research on Type 1A novas, the consensus shifted to the belief that the expansion is accelerating. Scientists follow the data better than the general public.

Of course, we must remind cricket that not one scientist was surveyed, asked, or questioned, as to what their opinion of AGW was.

That is demonstrably false. They have been surveyed and polled and their published climate studies have been reviewed.

 

[EMH]

Consensus is a measure of the acceptance of a theory.

Because there is a "consensus" of taxpayer funded conflicted liars that the atmospheric temp data should be FUDGED to show WARMING that


NEVER EXISTED IN THE ACTUAL DATA



Theory is validated by DATA. A "consensus" of those paid to lie is a consensus of liars...

 

[jc456]

Abstracts aren't propaganda. Every published study has one. They are simply summaries of the studies and their results.

making it up as you go huh?

 

[Cellblock2429]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

/——-/ Quick, send AlBore more money.

 

[jc456]

I did. It is there and I just tried i;, it works. For unknown reasons, it id labeled itself "ShieldSquare Captcha. Abstracts aren't propaganda. Every published study has one. They are simply summaries of the studies and their results.

Consensus is a measure of the acceptance of a theory.

And a theory or hypothesis proven wrong will not gain a consensus. Once upon a time all science believed that the expansion of the universe was slowing. After 18 months of research on Type 1A novas, the consensus shifted to the belief that the expansion is accelerating. Scientists follow the data better than the general public.

That is demonstrably false. They have been surveyed and polled and their published climate studies have been reviewed.

I can't understand why you continue to think that if you post the same nonsense over and over again, that somehow something will change? Repeating the same shit everyday doesn't change the facts that were used to defeat the argument with the very first post.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Flash]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

A lot of that "peer reviewed" bullshit is based upon fabricated and cherry picked data. We see it time and time again.

That is why the AGW Wackos have no credibility. That, and the fact none of their dire predictions ever come true.

 

[Crick]

A lot of that "peer reviewed" bullshit is based upon fabricated and cherry picked data. We see it time and time again.

That is why the AGW Wackos have no credibility. That, and the fact none of their dire predictions ever come true.

Do you have any evidence to support that charge? Fabricated and cherry picked data, eh. Time and time again, eh. Personally, I think you're in la-la land, but, hey, let's see what you've got.

 

[EMH]

Do you have any evidence to support that charge? Fabricated and cherry picked data, eh. Time and time again, eh. Personally, I think you're in la-la land, but, hey, let's see what you've got.

The atmospheric data was fudged because the two and only two measurements, satellites and balloons, both showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[elektra]

Abstracts aren't propaganda. Every published study has one. They are simply summaries of the studies and their results.

Abstracts are never propaganda? Never? You are very naive.

 

[elektra]

link to the actual study, abstracts are propaganda

I did. It is there and I just tried i;, it works. For unknown reasons, it id labeled itself "ShieldSquare Captcha. Abstracts aren't propaganda. Every published study has one. They are simply summaries of the studies and their results.

Crick has no idea the difference between a study and an abstract. The link is to the abstract, there is no study linked to.

Crick, is arguing that he/she linked to a study, yet it is labeled abstract. Anybody with just a tiny bit of education in science can see that the author of the study labeled the sections required for an abstract.

Anyone who reads the ABSTRACT that was linked to can see that it is a summary of a study.

I doubt that we will ever see the study, just the propaganda disguised as an abstract

 

[elektra]

Consensus is a measure of the acceptance of a theory.

A consensus is an opinion reached by a group of people. Not a study done with computer algorithms. No scientists were asked their opinion.

AGW, is simply a body of studies, certainly with thousands of theories contained within. Crick's idea that this study he has never read somehow validates one theory let alone all the theories is pure bullshit.

 

[elektra]

And a theory or hypothesis proven wrong will not gain a consensus. Once upon a time all science believed that the expansion of the universe was slowing. After 18 months of research on Type 1A novas, the consensus shifted to the belief that the expansion is accelerating. Scientists follow the data better than the general public.

????????

You just gave an example how a consensus of a theory, was proven wrong, and that theory is no longer valid. I can give another.

Contraction theory Just a little bit of knowledge and one can see that there are revolutions in science.

As far as scientists following the data, better than the general public, is irrelevant to any point you attempted to make, further it is nonsensical.

 

[elektra]

That is demonstrably false. They have been surveyed and polled and their published climate studies have been reviewed.

Okay, demonstrate

 

[EMH]

Crick has no idea the difference between a study and an abstract. The link is to the abstract, there is no study linked to.

Crick, is arguing that he/she linked to a study, yet it is labeled abstract. Anybody with just a tiny bit of education in science can see that the author of the study labeled the sections required for an abstract.

Anyone who reads the ABSTRACT that was linked to can see that it is a summary of a study.

I doubt that we will ever see the study, just the propaganda disguised as an abstract

And we NEVER get to see THE DATA. Get a lawyer is the first answer...

 

[EMH]

A consensus is an opinion reached by a group of people. Not a study done with computer algorithms. No scientists were asked their opinion.

AGW, is simply a body of studies, certainly with thousands of theories contained within. Crick's idea that this study he has never read somehow validates one theory let alone all the theories is pure bullshit.

If the people just had a government that measured and published DATA only, the Co2 fraud would never have gotten off the ground...

 

[luiza]

making it up as you go huh?

Doubtful . He probably really does believe his own nonsense .
It is a disease syndrome linked to Cognitive Rigidity.

Posters like Crick need to furnish independent documentation of their mental health and details of ongoing medical treatments .
His output has the hallmarks of an obsessive .
Invariably they have no specialist relevant qualifications .