Questions for the ‘Majority of Scientists Agree’ Climate Changers

[westwall]

What I listed were several scientific understandings that have never been minority opinions. I didn't mention ANYONE in my original post so it seems you don't actually need to read my posts before responding to them. Is that your A-game?

No, you listed a bunch of propaganda, created by the groups who benefit from that propaganda.

DURRRR

 

[abu afak]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature​

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2,
Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2Citation John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024
References
1,330,613 Total downloads
https://badge.dimensions.ai/details.../8/2/024024?domain=https://iopscience.iop.org

Abstract​

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a Vanishingly Small proportion of the published research.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Cook, John, Nuccitelli, Dana, Green, Sarah A, Richardson, Mark, Winkler, Bärbel, Painting, Rob, Way, Robert, Jacobs, Peter, Skuce, Andrew

iopscience.iop.org

`

 

[Crick]

Where do you see 80 years of static sea level?

I do not support politicians overriding doctors.

James Hansen's predictions from 1985 have held up very well.

If you're interested in failed predictions, you can very easily find dozens of AGW deniers predicting that warming will stop, that it is cooling, that we are going into another ice age, that CO2 levels have no effect on temperature, that it's all from volcanoes, etc, etc, etc. All of them complete failures

I'm curious where you should get the idea that I'm fascist or that I think the majority is always right. AGW was once a minority opinion. It's how science works.

I'm also curious why you seem so incredibly anxious to discuss anything OTHER than the topic of discussion.

 

[westwall]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature​

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2,
Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2Citation John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024
References
1,330,613 Total downloads
https://badge.dimensions.ai/details.../8/2/024024?domain=https://iopscience.iop.org

Abstract​

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a Vanishingly Small proportion of the published research.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Cook, John, Nuccitelli, Dana, Green, Sarah A, Richardson, Mark, Winkler, Bärbel, Painting, Rob, Way, Robert, Jacobs, Peter, Skuce, Andrew

iopscience.iop.org

`

Who cares about self rated papers. Talk about no credibility.

 

[Colin norris]

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

I see that you have been here only a short time which is why you never saw the many postings I made against Trump claims of a stolen election and disagreed with Trump over what Pence can do on the electoral votes in Congress.

Posted that since December 12, 2020, Trump should have stopped pushing the Stolen election narrative since SCOTUS said no to the Multiple lawsuit and having lost many other lawsuits by that time.

I have posted saying I am supporting limited Abortions have castigated both democrats and republicans over their failure to compromise on Abortions I have supported Gay rights here in the forum too.

I have stated openly in the forum that President William Clinton should not have been impeached as he didn't commit high crimes and misdemeanors it was a partisan bullshit investigation from the start.

Ooops there goes your bullshit claims!

I told the truth that I am an Independent and have been for years since I left the Democrat party back in the early 1990's

Meanwhile I notice your bluster over my link you haven't read yet. I posted a published paper that supported me 100%

Stop making a complete fool of yourself.

I don't care what you said in the past. You are lying but that's normal for republicans.
Longevity on here doesn't give you credibility, Only permission to fool the other idiots also.

 

[JoeB131]

A. Politifact is a Leftard propaganda tool.
B. Who the hell are you to think todays climate is optimum and must be preserved at all costs? Most prolific period of life on earth was when palm trees and dinosaurs were living in Alaska.
And man had nothing to do with those climate periods either.

First, Dinosaurs lived in Alaska at a time when the continents were in different places than they are now. The Dinosaurs died out because there was a sudden change in climate, caused by an asteroid hitting the earth.

Second, in those periods of the past, climate changed, but over hundreds of thousands of years, allowing life to adapt through NATURAL SELECTION. Both were slow processes.

Unlike with AGW, where the climate is changing radically over a few hundred years.

 

[Weatherman2020]

First, Dinosaurs lived in Alaska at a time when the continents were in different places than they are now. The Dinosaurs died out because there was a sudden change in climate, caused by an asteroid hitting the earth.

Second, in those periods of the past, climate changed, but over hundreds of thousands of years, allowing life to adapt through NATURAL SELECTION. Both were slow processes.

Unlike with AGW, where the climate is changing radically over a few hundred years.

I’ll just assume you’re guessing and not a liar.
Alaska was on top of the world when dinosaurs lived there.

As far as rapid changes, a couple of points. The Great Lakes did not exist 12,000 years ago. Take a guess as to why.
1794-1916 Glacier Bay glacier receded over 60 miles as it melted despite being over a mile thick.

Follow me and learn scientific facts.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I don't care what you said in the past. You are lying but that's normal for republicans.
Longevity on here doesn't give you credibility, Only permission to fool the other idiots also.

Lol,

You still haven't posted evidence against me little child thus you have nothing at all but be a small, brained pest.

Your partisanship attacks are boring and a sign of a lazy small brain.

Meanwhile you haven't posted a single bit of evidence that my LINKED evidence is wrong when are you going to turn on your small brain to bring up a real counterpoint?

When are you going to read this published science paper from Nature that supports my contention that Ice SHELVES are over the water and even grounded on bedrock underwater?

Nature

Rapid submarine ice melting in the grounding zones of ice shelves in West Antarctica

LINK

Maybe it is too much for your small brain to handle?

 

[Colin norris]

Lol,

You still haven't posted evidence against me little child thus you have nothing at all but be a small, brained pest.

Your partisanship attacks are boring and a sign of a lazy small brain.

Meanwhile you haven't posted a single bit of evidence that my LINKED evidence is wrong when are you going to turn on your small brain to bring up a real counterpoint?

When are you going to read this published science paper from Nature that supports my contention that Ice SHELVES are over the water and even grounded on bedrock underwater?

Nature

Rapid submarine ice melting in the grounding zones of ice shelves in West Antarctica

LINK

Maybe it is too much for your small brain to handle?

Not interested in your beliefs.
The facts are what matters but not to denialists like you.

So cut the silly childish remarks and stick to the point.
Stay with your bible.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not interested in your beliefs.
The facts are what matters but not to denialists like you.

So cut the silly childish remarks and stick to the point.
Stay with your bible.

Still nothing of substance but gladly post more useless bullshit, your brain must be shrinking from disuse, you are now on ignore since you don't stick with the truth and debate in good faith.

Cheers.

 

[Colin norris]

Still nothing of substance but gladly post more useless bullshit, your brain must be shrinking from disuse, you are now on ignore since you don't stick with the truth and debate in good faith.

Cheers.

I don't care what you think of me nor your opinion. I'll say what I like, when I like and if you don't like it, get a ticket, get in line and kiss my arse.

 

[ding]

Not interested in your beliefs.
The facts are what matters but not to denialists like you.

So cut the silly childish remarks and stick to the point.
Stay with your bible.

Is it too much to ask that anyone who lectures others on the climate actually know something about the climate?

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is an overwhelming consensus among the scientists, because there is an overwhelming consensus among the evidence. And there are mountains of mutually supportive evidence from nearly every field of science.

But any of you are free to take your GEDs and Google and publish mountains of research.

 

[ding]

There is an overwhelming consensus among the scientists, because there is an overwhelming consensus among the evidence. And there are mountains of mutually supportive evidence from nearly every field of science.

But any of you are free to take your GEDs and Google and publish mountains of research.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. So no, there is no consensus. Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because the primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports.

 

[skookerasbil]

There is an overwhelming consensus among the scientists, because there is an overwhelming consensus among the evidence. And there are mountains of mutually supportive evidence from nearly every field of science.

But any of you are free to take your GEDs and Google and publish mountains of research.

Hmmmm..........

But who is paying attention?

Where does the consensus impact the real world beyond symbolic shit?

Where is the "scientific consensus" transcending outside the scientific community?

Where is the 97% impacting energy policy........for the last 20 years?

Where is the research mattering outside of internet community message boards?

Where is it having ANY impact on China or India?

Where is there any evidence US voters care?




Weve been hearing about "mountains of evidence" and "overwhelming "consensus" for two decades.




@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[Crick]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. So no, there is no consensus. Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because the primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports.

Better than 98% of publishing climate scientists come to the SAME conclusion based on ALL the data available. There is virtually NO dissenting opinion in the published literature because there are so few scientists who hold dissenting opinions and those that do have enormous difficulty convincing peer reviewers of the validity of their claims. You would see the same difficulty searching for published studies showing that the moon landing never took place, that government aircraft are spraying experimental drugs and toxins on the general population and that Trump actually won the 2020 election. "Scientists" are almost unanimous in accepting the conclusions of the IPCC because that is where the vast majority of the evidence take them, not because of some insane conspiracy you've dreamed up.

 

[ding]

Better than 98% of publishing climate scientists come to the SAME conclusion based on ALL the data available. There is virtually NO dissenting opinion in the published literature because there are so few scientists who hold dissenting opinions and those that do have enormous difficulty convincing peer reviewers of the validity of their claims. You would see the same difficulty searching for published studies showing that the moon landing never took place, that government aircraft are spraying experimental drugs and toxins on the general population and that Trump actually won the 2020 election. "Scientists" are almost unanimous in accepting the conclusions of the IPCC because that is where the vast majority of the evidence take them, not because of some insane conspiracy you've dreamed up.

Sadly that's the IPCC's doing. Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements. The drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC has no control over what studies do and do not pass peer review for publication. The IPCC does not fund ANY research. How, according to your sources, does the IPCC suppress dissenting opinions? And on what issues do they believe there is still scientific disagreement? The IPCC's conclusions are based on the published literature and the published literature has exhibited the following conclusions:

 

[ding]

The IPCC has no control over what studies do and do not pass peer review for publication. The IPCC does not fund ANY research. How, according to your sources, does the IPCC suppress dissenting opinions? And on what issues do they believe there is still scientific disagreement? The IPCC's conclusions are based on the published literature and the published literature has exhibited the following conclusions:

View attachment 599180

They have control over what they decide to include and exclude in their reports. Don't act like this doesn't matter.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The IPCC has no control over what studies do and do not pass peer review for publication. The IPCC does not fund ANY research. How, according to your sources, does the IPCC suppress dissenting opinions? And on what issues do they believe there is still scientific disagreement? The IPCC's conclusions are based on the published literature and the published literature has exhibited the following conclusions:

View attachment 599180

Have you heard of META ANALYSIS?