|Does 97% of science agree?14-12-2017 23:26|
|Spoiler - yes.|
Frequently, you will come across deliberately misleading bullshit like this ...
"...Firstly only a moron uses that 97% of scientists BS. That was a lie from the first and every day that goes by shows it to be more of a lie. Who are NOAA using as part of that 97%? The American Medical Association - you know, those surgeons that are so knowledgeable about climate..."
Deliberately misrepresenting the fact, that this consensus figure has been obtained through an objective analysis of published peer-reviewed scientific papers which express a position on climate change and not from a rigged show of hands.
Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Once you see this type of behaviour, you can safely ignore further contributions from what could best be described as an unreliable, insignificant, noise generating, piglet.
"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
|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.|
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
|Into the Night★★★★★
I guess if you count only papers that have the phrase 'climate change' in them, you are going to get a pretty biased result. It is hardly objective.
Any paper using this buzzphrase is probably going to be in favor of the Church of Global Warming.
Makes no difference anyway. Consensus is not used in science.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-12-2017 01:08
Into the Night wrote:
No but it does emerge, and then it's disputed here.
That dispute is settled now.
"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
|Tim the plumber★★★★☆
|97% of climate scientists who responded to the question; Does human activity warm the planet? said yes.|
Who would say no to that????
Does that mean that it is a problem?
|97.1% to be precise - and climbing.|
Several studies have been performed that show that 97% figure to have been a complete lie from the very start:
" The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number."
"The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number."
The report that NASA presented to the IPCC was written with the assistance of 600 scientists. Fully 400 of these scientists have claimed that their papers were either misrepresented, as being for when they were neutral, or totally wrong - saying they were for when they were completely against. 2/3rds were lied about by NASA for political reasons.
This paper shows where and HOW NASA lied about the temperature records. Anything and everything that used these records to calculate anything are worthless. All of the "positive" papers used these records.
It must be underscored that NASA's claims for AGW stem from only 600 scientists and the Oregon Petition has over 31,000 signees. So exactly WHY is this spot/monckton character still trying to use that 97% figure? Because he is a liar who will used anything and everything to prove the Earth is dying because of man. This is a serious emotional psychological problem with him and nothing he writes should be even bothered with.
There is something that you are overlooking. If depleted aquifers cause refracted solar radiation to be refracted at a lower frequency then draining our aquifers can help to increase the temperature.
They had a tornado in the midwest that got stopped dead in it's tracks by a lake.
Lakes have a cooling effect on air that circulates above them. I'd say aquifers serve a similar purpose as far as atmospheric warming goes in those areas.
That is AGW climate change. In Iraq their main lake https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/jan/23/iran-lake-urmia-drying-up-new-research-scientists-urge-action
And in Central Asia https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141001-aral-sea-shrinking-drought-water-environment/
Iraq has been having record warming http://time.com/4713291/iran-climate-change/ and with the Aral Sea http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/environmental%20impacts.htm
Nothing personal monckton but climate change does include depleted ground water. I think this aspect of climate change is often overlooked.
@All, one reason why I mentioned this is because about all of the aquifers west of the Mississippi are going dry. And when we look at what has happened in other parts of the world where ground water has been depleted that is also what CAN happen in America as well.
Edited on 15-12-2017 18:07
|"Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus." |
...Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years' experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies.
Edited on 16-12-2017 05:34
On your best day you're really a chump.
|About the damage that Obama did to science.||125||10-12-2019 15:42|
|Two articles claiming more or less the opposite?(1% or 97% agree)||13||29-09-2019 01:41|
|Argument against AGW science||3||14-08-2019 20:51|
|Objectivity of Environmental Science||1||09-08-2019 02:13|
|Still No Climate Change Science||11||11-07-2019 04:23|