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

[gslack]

SSDD -

Most cults ae quite small....perhaps around 0.7% of the population?

That is where you need to look for priests and myths and religious quakery.

That you want to be in that 0.7% is fine - that you get to call the remaining 95% of the population a cult, less so.

Nice bit of BS crybaby. Now please quote people and stop acting like a juvenile.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

SSDD -

Most cults ae quite small....perhaps around 0.7% of the population?

That is where you need to look for priests and myths and religious quakery.

That you want to be in that 0.7% is fine - that you get to call the remaining 95% of the population a cult, less so.

Nice bit of BS crybaby. Now please quote people and stop acting like a juvenile.

32.6 vs 0.7 - pretty big divide

 

[gslack]

SSDD -

Most cults ae quite small....perhaps around 0.7% of the population?

That is where you need to look for priests and myths and religious quakery.

That you want to be in that 0.7% is fine - that you get to call the remaining 95% of the population a cult, less so.

Nice bit of BS crybaby. Now please quote people and stop acting like a juvenile.

32.6 vs 0.7 - pretty big divide

The pertinent numbers are 66% no opinion on a cause , and 32% naming AGW as the cause. Meaning no consensus. poopie, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.

 

[SSDD]

Nice bit of BS crybaby. Now please quote people and stop acting like a juvenile.

32.6 vs 0.7 - pretty big divide

The pertinent numbers are 66% no opinion on a cause , and 32% naming AGW as the cause. Meaning no consensus. poopie, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.

Interesting how 32% outweighs 66% in their minds and that 32% is dwindling as scientists report that cook's "experts" mischaracterized their paper in order to make it part of that 32%.

The level of self delusion these people are experiencing is simply amazing.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

What is interesting is how you somehow think the 66% whose papers do not refer to climate change are somehow on your side. They are not on your side.

That is patently NOT what the reports suggests.

The fact remains - 0.7% of academic papers back your case.

The level of self delusion these people are experiencing is simply amazing.

Says the 0.7%.

Meanwhile the rest of the world and almost the entire scientific community have moved on to the cutting edge questions you refuse to look at.

 

[SSDD]

That is patently NOT what the reports suggests.

What the report suggests is turning out to be false as scientists come out and state explicitly that their papers have been mischaracterized by cooks "experts".

Says the 0.7%.

The percentage that say that most warming is due to human activity is even smaller.

Meanwhile the rest of the world and almost the entire scientific community have moved on to the cutting edge questions you refuse to look at.

They are not looking at the primary question which is "where is the observed, recorded, empirical evidence that an increase of a trace gas in the atmosphere drives the climate?

Where is that evidence by the way?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nice bit of BS crybaby. Now please quote people and stop acting like a juvenile.

32.6 vs 0.7 - pretty big divide

The pertinent numbers are 66% no opinion on a cause , and 32% naming AGW as the cause. Meaning no consensus. poopie, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.

66% of what?

 

[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. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

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.

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72).

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

This is why the majority of physics papers on gravity do not state a position on general relativity.

 

[gslack]

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:



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. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

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.

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72).

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

This is why the majority of physics papers on gravity do not state a position on general relativity.

No that's why you don't expect to get a legitimate scientific study from a man who was a failed physicist, a failed cartoonist, who now makes a living writing an AGW propaganda blog.

According to his paper, 66% attributing no cause, and 32% pro AGW cause, is actually 97% agreement on AGW as cause.. In other words who are you gonna believe, a failed cartoonist or your lying eyes?

LOL, no matter how many times you re-post the same BS, it's still BS. Just like your astrophysics modeling nonsense.

 

[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:



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:



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. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

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.

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72).

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

This is why the majority of physics papers on gravity do not state a position on general relativity.

No that's why you don't expect to get a legitimate scientific study from a man who was a failed physicist, a failed cartoonist, who now makes a living writing an AGW propaganda blog.

According to his paper, 66% attributing no cause, and 32% pro AGW cause, is actually 97% agreement on AGW as cause.. In other words who are you gonna believe, a failed cartoonist or your lying eyes?

LOL, no matter how many times you re-post the same BS, it's still BS. Just like your astrophysics modeling nonsense.

So does this mean that since a majority of papers on gravity do not explicitly endorse GR, GR is not the consensus theory?

 

[gslack]

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

This is why the majority of physics papers on gravity do not state a position on general relativity.

No that's why you don't expect to get a legitimate scientific study from a man who was a failed physicist, a failed cartoonist, who now makes a living writing an AGW propaganda blog.

According to his paper, 66% attributing no cause, and 32% pro AGW cause, is actually 97% agreement on AGW as cause.. In other words who are you gonna believe, a failed cartoonist or your lying eyes?

LOL, no matter how many times you re-post the same BS, it's still BS. Just like your astrophysics modeling nonsense.

So does this mean that since a majority of papers on gravity do not explicitly endorse GR, GR is not the consensus theory?

no it means you're dumb enough to associate general relativity with AGW theory and think it has meaning....

Nice work poopie.. Seriously, you did awesome work on this.. I mean to think how close we came to some people maybe believing you were an astrophysics modeler, truly frightening.. Glad you're on the job man, you proved that was false right away...

BTW, I checked on it. And it seems Astrophysicists do their own modeling, or at least do the concepts and then let students, graduate students, etc do the modeling. So it seems you would either have to be a student of physics on his way to a masters or PHD degree in astrophysics or an astrophysicist.

LOL maybe you meant astrophysical modeler in that you made a model of the solar sytem in last years science fair??

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No that's why you don't expect to get a legitimate scientific study from a man who was a failed physicist, a failed cartoonist, who now makes a living writing an AGW propaganda blog.

According to his paper, 66% attributing no cause, and 32% pro AGW cause, is actually 97% agreement on AGW as cause.. In other words who are you gonna believe, a failed cartoonist or your lying eyes?

LOL, no matter how many times you re-post the same BS, it's still BS. Just like your astrophysics modeling nonsense.

So does this mean that since a majority of papers on gravity do not explicitly endorse GR, GR is not the consensus theory?

no it means you're dumb enough to associate general relativity with AGW theory and think it has meaning....

Nice work poopie.. Seriously, you did awesome work on this.. I mean to think how close we came to some people maybe believing you were an astrophysics modeler, truly frightening.. Glad you're on the job man, you proved that was false right away...

So why does AGW require explicit endorsement and GR not?

BTW, I checked on it. And it seems Astrophysicists do their own modeling, or at least do the concepts and then let students, graduate students, etc do the modeling. So it seems you would either have to be a student of physics on his way to a masters or PHD degree in astrophysics or an astrophysicist.

LOL maybe you meant astrophysical modeler in that you made a model of the solar sytem in last years science fair??

Since you asked, I'm a post-doctoral fellow.

 

[gslack]

So does this mean that since a majority of papers on gravity do not explicitly endorse GR, GR is not the consensus theory?

no it means you're dumb enough to associate general relativity with AGW theory and think it has meaning....

Nice work poopie.. Seriously, you did awesome work on this.. I mean to think how close we came to some people maybe believing you were an astrophysics modeler, truly frightening.. Glad you're on the job man, you proved that was false right away...

So why does AGW require explicit endorsement and GR not?

BTW, I checked on it. And it seems Astrophysicists do their own modeling, or at least do the concepts and then let students, graduate students, etc do the modeling. So it seems you would either have to be a student of physics on his way to a masters or PHD degree in astrophysics or an astrophysicist.

LOL maybe you meant astrophysical modeler in that you made a model of the solar sytem in last years science fair??

Since you asked, I'm a post-doctoral fellow.

You're a bullshitting fellow is what you are.Why call yourself a astrophysical modeler then? LOL, I'm a data analyst,I don't call myself a janitor... Dude you're and idiot..

And repeating the same BS doesn't make any less BS, just shows your ignorance. General relativity didn't require a consensus, it became accepted the normal way by trial and experimentation. They didn't need studies to show a consensus on it. The fact is your AGW theory does require it. Why? Because it's BS just like your tiresome and ignorant excuse is.

Your contention would be that it was too silly to expect those papers (the 66%) to cite AGW as definitive cause because it's assumed as such due to its wide acceptance. Correct? LOL,okay then please explain why they state that 32% did that very thing? Or why they even included the 66% in the report? If they didn't address the cause they should't have mattered in the results if your assumptions are correct..

But your assumptions aren't correct poopie. They didn't search for AGW caused global warming or global climate change, they searched for global warming or global climate change. They did that so they could lager volumes of papers in the search and give the study weight. The trouble is their assumption was wrong in regards to what scientist think on it, and their results showed it. So they fudge the analysis by stressing the superfluous and downplaying the pertinent numbers.

They did what a good fake scientist/failed cartoonist/ blog writer would do and change the presentation.

LOL sucker.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

no it means you're dumb enough to associate general relativity with AGW theory and think it has meaning....

Nice work poopie.. Seriously, you did awesome work on this.. I mean to think how close we came to some people maybe believing you were an astrophysics modeler, truly frightening.. Glad you're on the job man, you proved that was false right away...

So why does AGW require explicit endorsement and GR not?

BTW, I checked on it. And it seems Astrophysicists do their own modeling, or at least do the concepts and then let students, graduate students, etc do the modeling. So it seems you would either have to be a student of physics on his way to a masters or PHD degree in astrophysics or an astrophysicist.

LOL maybe you meant astrophysical modeler in that you made a model of the solar sytem in last years science fair??

Since you asked, I'm a post-doctoral fellow.

You're a bullshitting fellow is what you are.Why call yourself a astrophysical modeler then?

I model astrophysical systems.

LOL, I'm a data analyst,I don't call myself a janitor... Dude you're and idiot..

OK. Good for you.

And repeating the same BS doesn't make any less BS, just shows your ignorance. General relativity didn't require a consensus, it became accepted the normal way by trial and experimentation.

So there is no consensus on GR?

They didn't need studies to show a consensus on it.

So there is?

The fact is your AGW theory does require it. Why? Because it's BS just like your tiresome and ignorant excuse is.

So the reason most gravity papers don't state a position is because the authors were able to predict there would be no studies of GR consensus in future papers?

Your contention would be that it was too silly to expect those papers (the 66%) to cite AGW as definitive cause because it's assumed as such due to its wide acceptance. Correct? LOL,okay then please explain why they state that 32% did that very thing? Or why they even included the 66% in the report? If they didn't address the cause they should't have mattered in the results if your assumptions are correct..

But your assumptions aren't correct poopie. They didn't search for AGW caused global warming or global climate change, they searched for global warming or global climate change. They did that so they could lager volumes of papers in the search and give the study weight. The trouble is their assumption was wrong in regards to what scientist think on it, and their results showed it. So they fudge the analysis by stressing the superfluous and downplaying the pertinent numbers.

They did what a good fake scientist/failed cartoonist/ blog writer would do and change the presentation.

LOL sucker.

A search for "AGW caused global warming" would be biased towards papers that claim AGW is the cause of global warming, wouldn't it?

 

[westwall]

UH OH, it looks as though Cook and Co. mis-represented some of the papers and classified them in such a way that the authors find disagreeable. OOOOOOPPPPPS! Looks like th Cook paper is really COOKED!


"Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."



"Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings."



Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).




What a non-surprise, AGW supporters revising history yet again.... They would make a Holocaust denier proud!


Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

[SSDD]

no it means you're dumb enough to associate general relativity with AGW theory and think it has meaning....

AGW isn't a theory. It is a hypothesis and a poor one at that. No actual experimentation even begins to validate it and no real attempt at experimentation has ever been attempted to validate it. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of theory and barely, if even, rises to the level of legitimate hypothesis. It is pseudoscience and little else.

 

[SSDD]

UH OH, it looks as though Cook and Co. mis-represented some of the papers and classified them in such a way that the authors find disagreeable. OOOOOOPPPPPS! Looks like th Cook paper is really COOKED!


"Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."



"Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings."



Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).




What a non-surprise, AGW supporters revising history yet again.... They would make a Holocaust denier proud!


Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Morner, Soon, and Carlin also. You can bet that the list of scientists whose papers were mischaracterized by cook's "experts" will continue to grow.

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.


Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct.



Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

UH OH, it looks as though Cook and Co. mis-represented some of the papers and classified them in such a way that the authors find disagreeable. OOOOOOPPPPPS! Looks like th Cook paper is really COOKED!


"Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso perhaps should have responded to the author's request to self-rate his paper.

 

[gslack]

So why does AGW require explicit endorsement and GR not?



Since you asked, I'm a post-doctoral fellow.

You're a bullshitting fellow is what you are.Why call yourself a astrophysical modeler then?

I model astrophysical systems.

OK. Good for you.

So there is no consensus on GR?



So there is?

The fact is your AGW theory does require it. Why? Because it's BS just like your tiresome and ignorant excuse is.

So the reason most gravity papers don't state a position is because the authors were able to predict there would be no studies of GR consensus in future papers?

Your contention would be that it was too silly to expect those papers (the 66%) to cite AGW as definitive cause because it's assumed as such due to its wide acceptance. Correct? LOL,okay then please explain why they state that 32% did that very thing? Or why they even included the 66% in the report? If they didn't address the cause they should't have mattered in the results if your assumptions are correct..

But your assumptions aren't correct poopie. They didn't search for AGW caused global warming or global climate change, they searched for global warming or global climate change. They did that so they could lager volumes of papers in the search and give the study weight. The trouble is their assumption was wrong in regards to what scientist think on it, and their results showed it. So they fudge the analysis by stressing the superfluous and downplaying the pertinent numbers.

They did what a good fake scientist/failed cartoonist/ blog writer would do and change the presentation.

LOL sucker.

A search for "AGW caused global warming" would be biased towards papers that claim AGW is the cause of global warming, wouldn't it?

LOL, broken down into citing every line now? What your "astrophysics modeler brain can't follow a point without quoting each sentence?

You're another BS internet scientist, nothing more. We have seen it here all too many times now. You immature idiots talk yourselves into an indefensible position and then pull "I'm a physicist" or "I'm a scientist" or "I'm whatever I can think up that to help my sorry ass appear the winner" out of your singular or collective butts..

Sure, sure poopie, you're an astrophysical modeler. You made a model of the solar system out of Styrofoam balls and finger-paints at last years science fair.

You're a physicist and I'm Batman...

And your immature false claim about the conversation is duly noted.

 

[Saigon]

Certainly if papers were deliberately misclassified, that is discgraceful and indefensible, but I'd certainly prefer to hear it from a reliable source.

In reality, it may be that climate scepticism is as high as 1% of the scientific community.

Certainly some of the comments SSDD forgot to include are interesting:

Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"