Where is the Consensus survey

[elektra]

Basically why I reject Wiki out of hand for shit like this.

All links to other links or other webpages saying the same thing, "we are right"

 

[Crepitus]

why not just post the study

I already explained that to you.

Maybe ask someone for help?

 

[elektra]

I already explained that to you.

Maybe ask someone for help?

you made a declaration, I followed your link, and there is no study that your link, links to, and withing that wiki page, none of the links lead to a study. Nice waste of my time.

So post the study. You searched and all you could come up with was a wiki pedia page. It is obvious you tried, and if you found the study why not post it?

POST THE STUDY

 

[petro]

3. Footnoted Links to Surveys, 200-213
and other Sources.

1. ASA Statement on Climate Change, 30 November 2007 "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
2. ^ Lapp, David. "What Is Climate Change". Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
3. ^ Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy, February 2007 "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk ... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
4. ^ IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate (PDF), February 2009 "While the Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth's orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere. ... Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the Earth's climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves."
5. ^ IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect (PDF), October 2001 "Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world's most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase ... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth's climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk."
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Oreskes 2007, p. 68 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFOreskes2007 (help)
8. ^ AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
9. ^ "Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER". Aapg.org. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
10. ^ Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
11. ^ "AIPG Position Statements". Archived from the original on 2 February 2018. Retrieved 1 February 2018.
12. ^ "The Professional Geologist publications". Archived from the original on 5 March 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
13. ^ AAPG Climate Change June 2007

Sources​

• IPCC AR4 WG2 (2007), Parry, M. L.; Canziani, O. F.; Palutikof, J. P.; van der Linden, P. J.; Hanson, C. E. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7, archived from the original on 2018-11-10, retrieved 2013-05-21 (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4).
• IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R. K.; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7.
• IPCC AR5 WG1 (2013), Stocker, T.F.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge University Press. Climate Change 2013 Working Group 1 website.
• IPCC AR5 WG2 A (2014), Field, C.B.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II (WG2) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, archived from the original on 16 April 2014. Archived
• IPCC AR5 WG3 (2014), Edenhofer, O.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III (WG3) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, archived from the original on 29 October 2014. Archived

`

Thx Wiki for summarizing the CONSENSUS of Surveys re the Scientific Consensus which also includes the huge IPCC.

`

Yeah.
Absolutely no one is reading your wiki copy/paste.

All you are showing is you lack any ability to think for yourself, besides the ability to condense.

 

[abu afak]

`
This was published in April 2016 based on Earlier work (Doesn't include the even more Crushing 97-100% surveys of 2019, 2020, 2021.)
Even at that point Consensus was 90-100% - and stronger now.
and of course, 2016 later became THEE hottest year so far, tho 2023 will beat it.

Consensus on Consensus: a synthesis of Consensus estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming​

John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,
Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13
Show full author list
Published 13 April 2016 • © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4
Citation John Cook et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048002DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Abstract​

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

1. Introduction​

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 Countries have issued statements endorsing the Consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned. Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates
[...........]
[...........]
[...........]

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

`

 

[elektra]

`
This was published in April 2016 based on Earlier work (Doesn't include the even more Crushing 97-100% surveys of 2019, 2020, 2021.)
Even at that point Consensus was 90-100% - and stronger now.
and of course, 2016 later became THEE hottest year so far, tho 2023 will beat it.

Consensus on Consensus: a synthesis of Consensus estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming​

John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,
Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13
Show full author list
Published 13 April 2016 • © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4
Citation John Cook et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048002DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Abstract​

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

1. Introduction​

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 Countries have issued statements endorsing the Consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned. Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates
[...........]
[...........]
[...........]

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

`

thank you, we are getting somewhere, and this is as close as we get, an article describing what the study found. we never get the study

 

[elektra]

Consensus on Consensus: a synthesis of Consensus estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming
John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, `

now, that was not so hard, was it. My quote proves you wrong. Read it and weep, abu

abu afuk, see there, of the papers analyzed, 66% of the scientists did not express an opinion on global warming.

abu afuk, that leaves 32% that have an opinion, and of that 32%, 97% agree.

97% of 32% agree there is man made global warming, who writes things in such a convoluted way. Propagandists

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

 

[abu afak]

now, that was not so hard, was it. My quote proves you wrong. Read it and weep, abu

abu afuk, see there, of the papers analyzed, 66% of the scientists did not express an opinion on global warming.

abu afuk, that leaves 32% that have an opinion, and of that 32%, 97% agree.

97% of 32% agree there is man made global warming, who writes things in such a convoluted way. Propagandists

One can only get a position from someone who has one.
But thanks for REAFFIRMING 97%.
And apparently that was the best/lowest you could find? (on a pre-1916 or pre 200? study?)
I posted them up to 98.7-100% with Wiki's list on the Most Recent.
That's a refutation of Consensus?

And with all my links, the are numbers ranging to 100%.
You cherry picked one that didn't have many opinions and implied that's negative?

Look at page one's WIKI surveys.
Look at at NASA's Statements.

There isn't a single denier Major Science org.
EIGHTY Country's Natl academy of Sciences.

All of that constitutes/meets the conditions a "Scientific Consensus" which I also DEFINED for you with another link!
Jezus you are one giant nothing burger.
This is a Scientific Consensus.
As always, I put up all the Meat, the denier ZERO.
YOU LOST.
Bloh me fraud guy #6235.
`

 

[elektra]

One can only get a position from someone who has one.
But thanks for REAFFIRMING 97%.
And apparently that was the best/lowest you could find? (on a pre-1916 or pre 200? study?)
I posted them up to 98.7-100% with Wiki's list on the Most Recent.
That's a refutation of Consensus?

And with all my links, the are numbers ranging to 100%.
You cherry picked one that didn't have many opinions and implied that's negative?

Look at page one's WIKI surveys.
Look at at NASA's Statements.

There isn't a single denier Major Science org.
EIGHTY Country's Natl academy of Sciences.

All of that constitutes/meets the conditions a "Scientific Consensus" which I also DEFINED for you with another link!
Jezus you are one giant nothing burger.
This is a Scientific Consensus.
As always, I put up all the Meat, the denier ZERO.
YOU LOST.
Bloh me fraud guy #6235.
`

Less than 32% agree there is a consensus
Using abu afuk's sources, this is what we find, the consensus is only 32.6%

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

John Cook1,2,3

 

[ding]

One can only get a position from someone who has one.
But thanks for REAFFIRMING 97%.
And apparently that was the best/lowest you could find? (on a pre-1916 or pre 200? study?)
I posted them up to 98.7-100% with Wiki's list on the Most Recent.
That's a refutation of Consensus?

And with all my links, the are numbers ranging to 100%.
You cherry picked one that didn't have many opinions and implied that's negative?

Look at page one's WIKI surveys.
Look at at NASA's Statements.

There isn't a single denier Major Science org.
EIGHTY Country's Natl academy of Sciences.

All of that constitutes/meets the conditions a "Scientific Consensus" which I also DEFINED for you with another link!
Jezus you are one giant nothing burger.
This is a Scientific Consensus.
As always, I put up all the Meat, the denier ZERO.
YOU LOST.
Bloh me fraud guy #6235.
`

Science isn't a popularity contest and all those who idiots who acted like it is will soon be picking egg off of their face.

 

[elektra]

Science isn't a popularity contest and all those who idiots who acted like it is will soon be picking egg off of their face.

regardless of popularity, the study abu afuk presented says 32% believe in global warming. 34% out of 100% of studies they looked at, not all studies, just the studies they looked at expressed an opinion. They got 97% from looking at only 34% of the 100%

Where is abu afuk?

 

[abu afak]

regardless of popularity, the study abu afuk presented says 32% believe in global warming. 34% out of 100% of studies they looked at, not all studies, just the studies they looked at expressed an opinion. They got 97% from looking at only 34% of the 100%

Where is abu afuk?

I'm easy to find.
MY POSTS HAVE MEAT/DATA.
Yours none. (save for cherry picking and misrepresenting 1 of Thousands)

One can only get a position from someone who has one.
But thanks for REAFFIRMING 97%.
And apparently that was the best/lowest you could find? (on a pre-1916 or pre 200? study?)
I posted them up to 98.7-100% with Wiki's list on the Most Recent.
That's a refutation of Consensus?

And with all my links, the are numbers ranging to 100%.
You cherry picked one that didn't have many opinions and implied that's negative?

Look at page one's WIKI surveys.
Look at at NASA's Statements.

There isn't a single denier Major Science org.
EIGHTY Country's Natl Academy of Sciences.

All of that constitutes/meets the conditions a "Scientific Consensus" which I also DEFINED for you with another link!

Jezus you are one giant nothing burger.
This is a Scientific Consensus.
As always, I put up all the Meat, the denier ZERO.
YOU LOST.
Bloh me fraud guy #6235.

`

 

[elektra]

I'm easy to find.
MY POSTS HAVE MEAT/DATA.
Yours none. (save for cherry picking and misrepresenting 1 of Thousands)

Bloh me fraud guy #6235.`

abu baby fuck, bloh? you mean blow, but you are a coward,

I quoted your sources abu baby afuk

abu afuk's source states 32%, not my source. abu afuk says, "MY POSTS HAVE MEAT/DATA."

morons do not read their "meat/data"

I asked for one post with one study, abu afuk returned a bunch of bull shit, so I picked from the top, and surprisingly, abu bb, put a cherry on top, he Cook study

The cook study is the study, it is not cherry picking, it is the study that everyone quotes, it is the study that abu and crick have quoted 100's of times.

Cherry picking, the cook study, technically cook calls it a letter.

Now abu dumbass states quoting what abu and crick have cited 100's of times is bullshit cherry picking

There is no consensus, and when challenged, abu chooses to post all kinds of bullshit, bullshit because the links do not link to anything but wiki articles that make claims and link to more bullshit.

yep, abu's posts have meat, and when quoting that meat, abu cries that the meat is rotten, abu, you served up the meat, it is your rotten meat, are you really this stupid

 

[ding]

regardless of popularity, the study abu afuk presented says 32% believe in global warming. 34% out of 100% of studies they looked at, not all studies, just the studies they looked at expressed an opinion. They got 97% from looking at only 34% of the 100%

Where is abu afuk?

I understand.

 

[ding]

I'm easy to find.
MY POSTS HAVE MEAT/DATA.
Yours none. (save for cherry picking and misrepresenting 1 of Thousands)

One can only get a position from someone who has one.
But thanks for REAFFIRMING 97%.
And apparently that was the best/lowest you could find? (on a pre-1916 or pre 200? study?)
I posted them up to 98.7-100% with Wiki's list on the Most Recent.
That's a refutation of Consensus?

And with all my links, the are numbers ranging to 100%.
You cherry picked one that didn't have many opinions and implied that's negative?

Look at page one's WIKI surveys.
Look at at NASA's Statements.

There isn't a single denier Major Science org.
EIGHTY Country's Natl Academy of Sciences.

All of that constitutes/meets the conditions a "Scientific Consensus" which I also DEFINED for you with another link!

Jezus you are one giant nothing burger.
This is a Scientific Consensus.
As always, I put up all the Meat, the denier ZERO.
YOU LOST.
Bloh me fraud guy #6235.

`

Your posts are incoherent. You are borderline illiterate.

 

[abu afak]

Your posts are incoherent. You are borderline illiterate.

I understand your position.
(and half of your posts are ONE line and Indistinguishable from those of your smarter ally/Twin jc456.)

I have refuted the basis of 100,000 of your "Normal Interglacial" posts, so you Have to try and go ad hom/discredit your defeat.
Your feelings are hurt and your ego destroyed.
You are Finished here you FRAUD!
Stay in the Religion section where you belong/are conversant.

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

 

[ding]

I understand your position.
(and half of your posts are ONE line and Indistinguishable from those of your smarter ally/Twin jc456.)

I have refuted the basis of 100,000 of your "Normal Interglacial" posts, so you Have to try and go ad hom/discredit your defeat.
Your feelings are hurt and your ego destroyed.
You are Finished here you FRAUD!
Stay in the Religion section where you belong/are conversant.

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

My position is that you are a babbling moron.

 

[elektra]

I understand your position.
(and half of your posts are ONE line and Indistinguishable from those of your smarter ally/Twin jc456.)

I have refuted the basis of 100,000 of your "Normal Interglacial" posts, so you Have to try and go ad hom/discredit your defeat.
Your feelings are hurt and your ego destroyed.
You are Finished here you FRAUD!
Stay in the Religion section where you belong/are conversant.

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

how come you call your own "meat", bullshit, cherry picking

Why cant you actually discuss this? Is it because you are simply stupid or afraid?

 

[ding]

how come you call your own "meat", bullshit, cherry picking

Why cant you actually discuss this? Is it because you are simply stupid or afraid?

He’s illiterate.

 

[elektra]

He’s illiterate.

He must be. I have seen stupid here but Abu really takes the cake. Other than massive cut/paste the idiot hacks the cut/paste so the it is almost unreadable.