So much for the "consensus" myth....

[idb]

no to what? LOL,there wasn't a yes or no question silly..

Ok then.........................purple.

Uh-huh and crack is bad..

And you're clearly mad.
You're not even fun to play with.
Oh well.

 

[lynn63]

According to this we don't have a global warming problem. My question is are the oceans becoming warmer and if they are we definitely do have a real problem.

 

[idb]

According to this we don't have a global warming problem. My question is are the oceans becoming warmer and if they are we definitely do have a real problem.

Not quite.
According to the OP, there is no concensus among scientists on AGW.
All he did, though, is misread a study of scientific papers to reinforce his own conclusions.
The whole premise of the thread is bogus.

 

[gslack]

According to this we don't have a global warming problem. My question is are the oceans becoming warmer and if they are we definitely do have a real problem.

Not quite.
According to the OP, there is no concensus among scientists on AGW.
All he did, though, is misread a study of scientific papers to reinforce his own conclusions.
The whole premise of the thread is bogus.

no you're lying again.. You can wait a few days and try to post a lie but someone will catch you.. The fact is 66% showed no opinion, meaning no consensus, and that's that.. Nice try.

 

[idb]

According to this we don't have a global warming problem. My question is are the oceans becoming warmer and if they are we definitely do have a real problem.

Not quite.
According to the OP, there is no concensus among scientists on AGW.
All he did, though, is misread a study of scientific papers to reinforce his own conclusions.
The whole premise of the thread is bogus.

no you're lying again.. You can wait a few days and try to post a lie but someone will catch you.. The fact is 66% showed no opinion, meaning no consensus, and that's that.. Nice try.

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

 

[gslack]

Not quite.
According to the OP, there is no concensus among scientists on AGW.
All he did, though, is misread a study of scientific papers to reinforce his own conclusions.
The whole premise of the thread is bogus.

no you're lying again.. You can wait a few days and try to post a lie but someone will catch you.. The fact is 66% showed no opinion, meaning no consensus, and that's that.. Nice try.

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

NOOOOOOOO! 66% offered no opinion as to a cause. Meaning they aren't sure as to a cause meaning no consensus on a cause..

I know why not try waiting a few days, come back and repeating it and hope no one notices again.. Worked so well this time..

 

[westwall]

Not quite.
According to the OP, there is no concensus among scientists on AGW.
All he did, though, is misread a study of scientific papers to reinforce his own conclusions.
The whole premise of the thread is bogus.

no you're lying again.. You can wait a few days and try to post a lie but someone will catch you.. The fact is 66% showed no opinion, meaning no consensus, and that's that.. Nice try.

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

That's sheer un-adulterated horseshit that only an avowed science denier could ever utter. Congrats, you have rendered yourself totally irrelevant to any further scientific discussions thanks to your mind numbing ignorance of science.

 

[idb]

no you're lying again.. You can wait a few days and try to post a lie but someone will catch you.. The fact is 66% showed no opinion, meaning no consensus, and that's that.. Nice try.

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

That's sheer un-adulterated horseshit that only an avowed science denier could ever utter. Congrats, you have rendered yourself totally irrelevant to any further scientific discussions thanks to your mind numbing ignorance of science.

Try reading the article used by the OP and get back to me.
The OP has misconstrued the author's conclusion...whether you agree with the conclusion or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[gslack]

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

That's sheer un-adulterated horseshit that only an avowed science denier could ever utter. Congrats, you have rendered yourself totally irrelevant to any further scientific discussions thanks to your mind numbing ignorance of science.

Try reading the article used by the OP and get back to me.
The OP has misconstrued the author's conclusion...whether you agree with the conclusion or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

And the ramblings of a troll who has nothing to add but proclaiming himself right anyway, is irrelevant... Uh that would be you troll boy..

 

[Saigon]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]




trace gases are gay

 

[idb]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

Nicely wrapped up.

 

[westwall]

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

That's sheer un-adulterated horseshit that only an avowed science denier could ever utter. Congrats, you have rendered yourself totally irrelevant to any further scientific discussions thanks to your mind numbing ignorance of science.

Try reading the article used by the OP and get back to me.
The OP has misconstrued the author's conclusion...whether you agree with the conclusion or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

I did. And your assertion flys in the face of reality.

 

[westwall]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

And we also learned that .326% do endorse it. That means you lose by over a two to one margin. Thanks for playing now go away. LOSER!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe.

And yet, in your land, strangely, 0.7% is a majority opinion.

Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

Ahh! So not stating an opinion means they agree with your position! Oh that's just so convenient, isn't it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:

“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”

From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

Every major main stream European news paper has been building back doors as it became evident (publicly) that we have been cooling off for more than a decade now..and these 66% you mention are doing it for the same reason...to save face.

But we haven't been cooling off for more than a decade.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It is unfortunate that you are in a position where you find that you must pick someone to beleve rather than depend on your own intellect and even more unfortunate that you based your choice on such a rediculous factor as your political position

Perhaps he's not a scientist.

 

[idb]

That's sheer un-adulterated horseshit that only an avowed science denier could ever utter. Congrats, you have rendered yourself totally irrelevant to any further scientific discussions thanks to your mind numbing ignorance of science.

Try reading the article used by the OP and get back to me.
The OP has misconstrued the author's conclusion...whether you agree with the conclusion or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

I did. And your assertion flys in the face of reality.

My only assertion is on the conclusion of the report's author.
I haven't offered an opinion on whether I think he's right or not.

 

[idb]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

And we also learned that .326% do endorse it. That means you lose by over a two to one margin. Thanks for playing now go away. LOSER!

And to think, I belived you earlier when you claimed to have read the article.
Check your figures again and call him a loser one more time.

 

[gslack]

Gotta love this warmer math.. LOL..

We have a self-proclaimed "modeler" and a self proclaimed journalist living in finland, and a troll, who tell us that 66% of the papers that do not pick a cause, are irrelevant because of the 32% that did pick AGW theory as the cause, 97% of them completely with the theory. And using their amazing logic, that means 97% agree with it...

You really couldn't make this up...ROFL.