Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Sun Devil 92]

Can anyone else show us where 97% of scientists agree on a postulated thesis like this ?

I'd be curious to know.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.

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

[paste:font size="4"]Download this video

Transcript of this video

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

[Dot Com]

Can anyone else show us where 97% of scientists agree on a postulated thesis like this ?

I'd be curious to know.

yeah, we're all ears.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.

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

[paste:font size="4"]Download this video

Transcript of this video

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

My post was poorly worded.

My question was if there was another outstanding debate such as this where 97% of scientists lined up on one side ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh look a far left rag blog site being used by an AGW religious cult member..

How about post those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Deniers of the world, unite!
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces Mother Jones

And then does it again!

See how the AGW is a religious cult not based on any real science..

You want to see me do it again?
Who are the climate change deniers Randal S. Olson

And they do it again using science denying blog sites..

I really like this one, a gold mine of information on deniers.
Global Warming Deniers Database

Denier is an AGWCult secret handshake word, it's how they identify each other as members

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.

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

[paste:font size="4"]Download this video

Transcript of this video

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

My post was poorly worded.

My question was if there was another outstanding debate such as this where 97% of scientists lined up on one side ?

Yeah. Science is not done by "Consensus"

 

[bripat9643]

Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.

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

[paste:font size="4"]Download this video

Transcript of this video

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

My post was poorly worded.

My question was if there was another outstanding debate such as this where 97% of scientists lined up on one side ?

Continental drift. The 97% turned out to be dead wrong.

 

[Crick]

Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.

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

[paste:font size="4"]Download this video

Transcript of this video

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

My post was poorly worded.

My question was if there was another outstanding debate such as this where 97% of scientists lined up on one side ?

General and Special Relativity. The germ theory of disease. Quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics for non-relativistic domains. The Standard Model of particle physics. Statistical thermodynamics. Redox equations. Lorentz Transforms. etc, etc, etc.

 

[flacaltenn]

97%

Scientists Climate change is happening

Can anyone else show us where 97% of scientists agree on a postulated thesis like this ?

I'd be curious to know.

Well up to a couple weeks the common consensus was that ingested cholesterol was a deadly thing. New studies come out that cast doubt on that. Happens all the time in medicine (see gastro-ulcers)..

We've been over this 97% thingy on this board a dozen times and there is core of fanatics that don't understand the faulty methodology that was used in that in study. It was done by fanatics from SkepticalScience with an agenda to fill and they got caught adding the majority of formal papers that did not offer an opinion into the YES column.. ((Statements like "It has been stated by _____ (footnote) that man is a major factor in this current warming --- THAT by itself is not an opinion of the author(s). Most papers have several authors and they don't neccessarily all believe the same things. And formal papers are a bad place to try and divine opinion (without asking) anyway. Scientifically, the only ledge you're supposed to go out on is to stick to supportable and testable Hypotheses...

The scientists in that study were never separated as to their beliefs. I'm a skeptic -- If you asked me..

1) Do I believe that the Earth's climate is warming? ---- Yes
2) Do I believe that man has contributed to that warming? ---- Yes

BAMMMMM -- I'm in the 97% claim that morons love to echo.
It's not that easy to assess opinion if you don't ask the right questions. Ask ANY reputable polling firm.. Or ask a disreputable one ...

HOWEVER -- that's not what the Global Warming Theory actually says.
I reject the parts of the theory that MAGICALLY MULTIPLY the actual warming power of CO2. It states that CO2 is merely the 2 degC trigger where the Earth's climate will descend into a self-sustained cycle of destruction.. The deniers reject all of that.. Including me..

There ARE actual surveys out there. And they show all kinds of skepticism in the Climate Comm. Especially in the area of "hockey stick" proxy studies on ancient temps and the degree to which man is causing any warming. NONE -- to my knowledge ask anything as specific as

Do you believe the Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly in 2100 will be higher than 3degC over the value in 2000? So -- it's all pretty meaninless.

The 97% was NOT an opinion survey.. It was a sketchy Ouiji Board game by the faithful..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy. You have found no flaw with their methodology. That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed. They line up with a dozen other studies. I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds. None.

Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis? That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?

Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?

What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag... But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..

 

[Davey T]

The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy. You have found no flaw with their methodology. That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed. They line up with a dozen other studies. I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds. None.

Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis? That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?

Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?

What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag... But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..

I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue. I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
1. The earth is warming. Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period. Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
2. If it is warming, is it CO2? Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.
3. If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
4. If it is CO2, is it man made CO2 and not the various other souces.

I have seen none of these. I've seen: CO2 goes up, the temperature went up, man must be killing earth. Everyone agree? Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies. What could go wrong?

 

[Davey T]

The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy. You have found no flaw with their methodology. That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed. They line up with a dozen other studies. I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds. None.

Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis? That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?

Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?

What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag... But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..

I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue. I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
1. The earth is warming. Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period. Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
2. If it is warming, is it CO2? Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.
3. If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
4. If it is CO2, is it man made CO2 and not the various other souces.

I have seen none of these. I've seen: CO2 goes up, the temperature went up, man must be killing earth. Everyone agree? Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies. What could go wrong?

I am sorry. I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it. This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.

 

[Crick]

I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue. I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
1. The earth is warming. Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period. Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
2. If it is warming, is it CO2? Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.
3. If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
4. If it is CO2, is it man made CO2 and not the various other souces.

I have seen none of these. I've seen: CO2 goes up, the temperature went up, man must be killing earth. Everyone agree? Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies. What could go wrong?

Then you haven't looked very hard, have you.

Go to www.ipcc.ch and look up WG-I, The Physical Science Basis in the fifth assessment report, AR5.

 

[Crick]

I am sorry. I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it. This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.

No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science. Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior. And, guess what? We're all entitled to have and express opinions.

Consensus IS part of science. It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured. Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted". Best of all is when they demand there be "proof". There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted. The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.

If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.

 

[jc456]

I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue. I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
1. The earth is warming. Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period. Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
2. If it is warming, is it CO2? Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.
3. If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
4. If it is CO2, is it man made CO2 and not the various other souces.

I have seen none of these. I've seen: CO2 goes up, the temperature went up, man must be killing earth. Everyone agree? Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies. What could go wrong?

Then you haven't looked very hard, have you.

Go to www.ipcc.ch and look up WG-I, The Physical Science Basis in the fifth assessment report, AR5.

again crick there is no experimental evidence at that web page. try again.

 

[jc456]

I am sorry. I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it. This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.

No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science. Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior. And, guess what? We're all entitled to have and express opinions.

Consensus IS part of science. It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured. Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted". Best of all is when they demand there be "proof". There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted. The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.

If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.

show me where consensus is part of science. link please.

 

[Davey T]

I am sorry. I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it. This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.

No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science. Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior. And, guess what? We're all entitled to have and express opinions.

Consensus IS part of science. It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured. Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted". Best of all is when they demand there be "proof". There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted. The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.

If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.

Well, the better way is called science. That is, you propose a theory and conduct experiments that "prove" that theory. Then, you show your work so that your "proof" is repeatable and the methodology is over-viewed. Pretty basic stuff. By the way, so I am not just a denier, I checked on the Work Group 1, AR5 report as suggested above and none of those questions were answered, so far. Still reading 1500 pages and looking for some semblance of fair play in arriving at CO2 being a causative pollutant vis a vis all of the other potential atmospheric gases and climatic change agents. Nothing so far.

 

[jc456]

I am sorry. I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it. This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.

No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science. Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior. And, guess what? We're all entitled to have and express opinions.

Consensus IS part of science. It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured. Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted". Best of all is when they demand there be "proof". There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted. The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.

If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.

Well, the better way is called science. That is, you propose a theory and conduct experiments that "prove" that theory. Then, you show your work so that your "proof" is repeatable and the methodology is over-viewed. Pretty basic stuff. By the way, so I am not just a denier, I checked on the Work Group 1, AR5 report as suggested above and none of those questions were answered, so far. Still reading 1500 pages and looking for some semblance of fair play in arriving at CO2 being a causative pollutant vis a vis all of the other potential atmospheric gases and climatic change agents. Nothing so far.

exactly what I told him. he now put me on ignore.

So bottom line is he can't prove his position, he instead runs from the discussion.

 

[Davey T]

I am sorry. I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it. This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.

No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science. Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior. And, guess what? We're all entitled to have and express opinions.

Consensus IS part of science. It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured. Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted". Best of all is when they demand there be "proof". There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted. The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.

If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.

Well, the better way is called science. That is, you propose a theory and conduct experiments that "prove" that theory. Then, you show your work so that your "proof" is repeatable and the methodology is over-viewed. Pretty basic stuff. By the way, so I am not just a denier, I checked on the Work Group 1, AR5 report as suggested above and none of those questions were answered, so far. Still reading 1500 pages and looking for some semblance of fair play in arriving at CO2 being a causative pollutant vis a vis all of the other potential atmospheric gases and climatic change agents. Nothing so far.

By the way, Crick, your entire paragraph about how consensus is part of science could have been taken out of Galileo's trial. Pope Urban: "Proof? Impossible. I'm not sailing over the edge of the earth!".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies. What could go wrong?

It would be better and more effective to discourage the global Left from exhaling.