A poll re the value of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus is a POLITICAL TERM. No reputable scientist will use this term. Also known as a Popularity Contest.

Dictionary
consensus



noun, con·sen·sus often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

Full Definition of CONSENSUS
1
a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2
: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
See consensus defined for English-language learners
See consensus defined for kids

It has exactly ZERO to do with the validity of any thing..

 

[skookerasbil]

We've all been hearing about this "consensus" for 20 years now.

Where is it mattering in the real world?

Seriously..........so lets just say ok.....there is a consensus!!

So what?

Ive seen those committed to the alarmist view of global warming fall all over themselves for the last 5 years in this forum...........all about this 97% and the consensus. Its very apparent that out there in radioland, nobody is caring.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?

Consensus is not a term of science. That and the total arrogance behind "Settled science" should cause any objective person to question the motives of those insisting that their theory was special enough to forego the scientific method

There is no such thing as a "term of science". That comment is meaningless.

There is no arrogance behind describing AGW as settled science. It is settled science because there is no longer any significant debate taking place.

AGW has most CERTAINLY not foregone the testing of the scientific method. Those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers are a clear demonstration of that fact.

There's no debate? Ta-riffic we're going to zero out all your funding

 

[Crick]

Lets review the concensus..

1944 papers reviewed...

All but 77 thrown out becasue they did not "meet expectations"

Of those 77 papers retained, only three were not totally blaming man...

The result was a 97% consensus.(as fabricated by John Cook of Skeptical Science).

But when we add in all of the other papers who did not agree on man made warming we get less than 1/2 of one percent or 0.5 %

Legates Et Al shredded the Bull Shit...

Funny how appeals to authority always tout this kind of crap.

Anyone quoting Legates on this issue is admitting their idiocy in the clearest of terms.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets review the concensus..

1944 papers reviewed...

All but 77 thrown out becasue they did not "meet expectations"

Of those 77 papers retained, only three were not totally blaming man...

The result was a 97% consensus.(as fabricated by John Cook of Skeptical Science).

But when we add in all of the other papers who did not agree on man made warming we get less than 1/2 of one percent or 0.5 %

Legates Et Al shredded the Bull Shit...

Funny how appeals to authority always tout this kind of crap.

Anyone quoting Legates on this issue is admitting their idiocy in the clearest of terms.

LOL.... Anyone not quoting Legates Et Al on this is a fraud and a liar.. Its stunning to see this crap over and over again and when the real facts are presented they scream like a little bitch wanting them silenced. Good little Stalinist aren't you..

The AGW scam is unraveling and the liars are being exposed..

 

[Billy_Bob]

One must wonder if having your hand out and receiving wealth stolen from others would make one popular with lots of people?

Instant winner in a popularity contest.. BUY THE LOW INFORMATION VOTER or third world country... More of the left wing Blame America First and destroy capitalism bull shit..

 

[Crick]

Lets review the concensus..

1944 papers reviewed...

All but 77 thrown out becasue they did not "meet expectations"

Of those 77 papers retained, only three were not totally blaming man...

The result was a 97% consensus.(as fabricated by John Cook of Skeptical Science).

But when we add in all of the other papers who did not agree on man made warming we get less than 1/2 of one percent or 0.5 %

Legates Et Al shredded the Bull Shit...

Funny how appeals to authority always tout this kind of crap.

Anyone quoting Legates on this issue is admitting their idiocy in the clearest of terms.

LOL.... Anyone not quoting Legates Et Al on this is a fraud and a liar.. Its stunning to see this crap over and over again and when the real facts are presented they scream like a little bitch wanting them silenced. Good little Stalinist aren't you..

The AGW scam is unraveling and the liars are being exposed..

Stop hopping up and down and think for a second numb nuts. Do you actually believe that only 0.5% - 1 in 200 - climate scientists believe CO2 is responsible for warming the planet? Really? REALLY?!?

 

[Crick]

And, yo, Billy Boy. If Legates' results were accurate, why did direct inquiries of the authors of those studies show they believed their studies reflected an even greater acceptance of the IPCC central conclusion than did Cook's review of the papers themselves? How does that work out exactly?

 

[skookerasbil]

re: the 97%.........

But Kahan, a Yale law professor who has extensively researched how our ideological predispositions skew our acceptance of facts, isn't so sure. It's not that he doubts Lewandowsky's basic finding. But, he says, "when people get that kind of message in the world, there are all kinds of other influences that are filtering, essentially, the credibility of that message. If that would work, I would have expected it to work by now."

How do you get people to give a damn about climate change?

 

[skookerasbil]

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.


duh



The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'



Gotta remember folks..........progressives ALWAYS get very loosey-goosey with the statistics not matter what you are talking about. In other words, the whole 97% concept is a rigged consensus.

Progressives ( AGW alarmists ) do the same thing in here when they present facts on things like solar energy where they post up these surreal growth numbers but they are only compared to previous growth numbers in solar energy. Looks impressive as hell ( just like the 97% figure ) until you step back and look at what it is compared to ( ie: any of the fossil fuels ).........then it becomes nothing less than laughable. Specifically, the #s posted up by progressives show increases of +130% or some shit like that but solar is still far less than 1% of meeting our electricity needs!!!

Funny as hell right???



So.........whenever a progressive posts up stats or percentages on ANYTHING always stop and ask yourself the only significant thing to ask: "AS COMPARED TO WHAT?"

 

[skookerasbil]

more losing

 

[Kosh]

The record growth of Antarctic sea ice has long been a troubling contradiction for global warming theory. But those who embrace CO2 as the driver of climate change typically countered that global warming was still melting the continental glaciers and raising sea levels. However on October 29, 2015 a team of NASA researchers led by Jay Zwally published the paper “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses”. If the new NASA research proves correct – and there is good evidence to suggest it is – continental ice is increasing and lowering sea level. That would highlight another major failure for both CO2 driven models and models of sea level change. The reaction of Dr. Theodore Scambos, senior research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center, was all too reminiscent of the “hide the decline” mentality evidenced by advocacy scientists in the climategate scandal. In an Al Jazeera interview Scambos asked, “Please don’t publicize this study.” Others pushed back by simply listing any research that disagreed with Zwally, but rarely did they list the research supporting Zwally’s results. Nor did they delve into why there is no Antarctica consensus, as I will do here.

Is Antarctica's Climate Change Natural or CO2 Driven? There Is Absolutely No Consensus

 

[bripat9643]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

It's also an "established fact" that many Americans believe in bigfoot. That doesn't make the existence of bigfoot a fact.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And, yo, Billy Boy. If Legates' results were accurate, why did direct inquiries of the authors of those studies show they believed their studies reflected an even greater acceptance of the IPCC central conclusion than did Cook's review of the papers themselves? How does that work out exactly?

Good question! Why dont you have John Cook get clarification? AND PUBLISH IT VERBATIM..

 

[bripat9643]

If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?

Consensus is not a term of science. That and the total arrogance behind "Settled science" should cause any objective person to question the motives of those insisting that their theory was special enough to forego the scientific method

There is no such thing as a "term of science". That comment is meaningless.

There is no arrogance behind describing AGW as settled science. It is settled science because there is no longer any significant debate taking place.

AGW has most CERTAINLY not foregone the testing of the scientific method. Those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers are a clear demonstration of that fact.

There certainly is plenty of debate about global warming. Of course, there's none among the bought off propagandists on the government payroll who dishonestly call themselves "climate scientists."

 

[Crick]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

It's also an "established fact" that many Americans believe in bigfoot. That doesn't make the existence of bigfoot a fact.

Is there a consensus among any group of experts that bigfoot exists? No. You know, Billy, a scientist would not have made such a stupid argument.

 

[SSDD]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. Anyone who disagrees will get this link in reply.

You never did...did you....A piss poor appeal to authority is all you ever had...but thanks for the new quote for my sig...it is even dumber than mammoths claim that statistics is the fundamental mechanism of the second law of thermodynamics...

 

[Muhammed]

Tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies support the validity of anthropogenic global warming. That's not a matter of "how we feel" Frank. Your decision (and similar decisions by almost ALL your denier buddies) to simply reject those scientific studies out of hand because you DO NOT LIKE their results or the conclusions they draw - that is a matter of acting on your "feelings".

I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?

Sounds like you are a climategate denier.

 

[SSDD]

If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?

Consensus is not a term of science. That and the total arrogance behind "Settled science" should cause any objective person to question the motives of those insisting that their theory was special enough to forego the scientific method

There is no such thing as a "term of science". That comment is meaningless.

There is no arrogance behind describing AGW as settled science. It is settled science because there is no longer any significant debate taking place.

AGW has most CERTAINLY not foregone the testing of the scientific method. Those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers are a clear demonstration of that fact.

There certainly is plenty of debate about global warming. Of course, there's none among the bought off propagandists on the government payroll who dishonestly call themselves "climate scientists."

Crick agrees with you...see his quote in my sig...he has no intention of debating facts...he relies entirely on the consensus...just like those folks who relied on the consensus RE: stomach ulcers being caused by stress....and many other consensus that were dead wrong.

 

[Crick]

If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?

Consensus is not a term of science. That and the total arrogance behind "Settled science" should cause any objective person to question the motives of those insisting that their theory was special enough to forego the scientific method

There is no such thing as a "term of science". That comment is meaningless.

There is no arrogance behind describing AGW as settled science. It is settled science because there is no longer any significant debate taking place.

AGW has most CERTAINLY not foregone the testing of the scientific method. Those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers are a clear demonstration of that fact.

There certainly is plenty of debate about global warming. Of course, there's none among the bought off propagandists on the government payroll who dishonestly call themselves "climate scientists."

Crick agrees with you...see his quote in my sig...he has no intention of debating facts...he relies entirely on the consensus...just like those folks who relied on the consensus RE: stomach ulcers being caused by stress....and many other consensus that were dead wrong.

Feel free to continue researching any of these questions. And, if you should come across a better explanation for the observations, please bring it forth. But till then, claims that AGW is invalid, or unsupported or refuted are shite.

PS, SSDD has a strong habit of using quotations out of context and making outright claims that they mean something that their context clearly demonstrates they do not. It was my understanding that such practices were a violation of the rules here, but SSDD seems to have exceptional leeway in such regards. When I stated I would not debate the facts, the facts under discussion were whether or not a consensus supporting AGW exists among climate scientists. SSDD would have you believe that I was refusing to debate climate science in general. That, of course, would be a LIE.