🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Less Than One Third Of Scientific Papers Published Endorse Climate Change? But, but OBAMA!....

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,767
So of the one third, roughly that thought Climate Change is primarily human driven, 97% of them agreed recent warming was human driven?

Why would it be anything different considering the filter on the groups composition, i.e. they think that already since anthropogenic (man-made) global warming = warming that is mostly man-made.”

Hence the 97% Big Lie.


When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World - Breitbart

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.
 
are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

No, read it again.

He claims that only one third of scientific papers are published. If is trouble for you to understand, that means remaining two thirds is not published. Got it now?
 
th
 
So of the one third, roughly that thought Climate Change is primarily human driven, 97% of them agreed recent warming was human driven?

Why would it be anything different considering the filter on the groups composition, i.e. they think that already since anthropogenic (man-made) global warming = warming that is mostly man-made.”

Hence the 97% Big Lie.


When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World - Breitbart

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
Of those 97% considered that it was man made.

The other papers would have had those search terms for other reasons....such as discussing the effects of GW, or the economic costs, or political issues or whatever.
 
are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?
Neither.

It is already well established that Barrack 'You can keep your doctor' Obama is a liar.

And obviously we as a species have an impact on our environment and some influence on Climate Change as well.

But we are not the driving force of that change.
 
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
 
Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract,
Dumbfuck rightards will be dumbfuck rightards.



Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

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.
sauce
 
Last edited:
Just in case you missed it, 32.6% is roughly 97% of 33.6%.
 
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
 
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.
 
No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.
Invincible ignorance is invincible. There is no finer demonstration of that principle than on this messageboard. Even when told directly with evidence to back it up reality is denied.
 
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.
No, sorry, that's wrong.
If you look at my figures, 0.7% of the total number of papers rejected AGW.
They were counted, not rejected.

They only discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
 
So of the one third, roughly that thought Climate Change is primarily human driven, 97% of them agreed recent warming was human driven?

Why would it be anything different considering the filter on the groups composition, i.e. they think that already since anthropogenic (man-made) global warming = warming that is mostly man-made.”

Hence the 97% Big Lie.


When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World - Breitbart

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.
Jim, you and Breibart are full of shit. I do check out the original papers. And I routinely watch the videos from the AGU convention. The con is being pulled on people like you that do not read those papers. No, they don't say, Global Warming caused this. They just point out the evidence that certain things are happening. Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming? Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places? Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.
 
Sometimes I let my disgust get away on me at people who can't even check for basic math errors but then criticise peer reviewed scientific research.
 
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.
No, sorry, that's wrong.
If you look at my figures, 0.7% of the total number of papers rejected AGW.
They were counted, not rejected.

They only discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.

Lol, dude, 'did not endorse' does not equal 'did not express opinion'..
 
Jim, you and Breibart are full of shit. I do check out the original papers. And I routinely watch the videos from the AGU convention. The con is being pulled on people like you that do not read those papers. No, they don't say, Global Warming caused this. They just point out the evidence that certain things are happening. Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming?

Why do other glacier GROW without there being COLDER temperatures?

We have both happening, not just glaciers melting.

Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places?

Because even normal temperature variance produces extremes from time to time.

Its not like there were no record hot and cold temperatures before.

Washington DC Experiences Coldest May Since 1882

That follows last years cold breaking records
Record-breaking cold descends on eastern US - BBC News

Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.

Because El Nino is a major current that affects normal temperature variance, as does la nina.
 
Last edited:
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.
No, sorry, that's wrong.
If you look at my figures, 0.7% of the total number of papers rejected AGW.
They were counted, not rejected.

They only discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.

Lol, dude, 'did not endorse' does not equal 'did not express opinion'..
Direct quote from the paper..."We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW".
I'd say that means pretty much the same as "expressed no opinion".
 
You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.
The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.
Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.
No, sorry, that's wrong.
If you look at my figures, 0.7% of the total number of papers rejected AGW.
They were counted, not rejected.

They only discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
They did not support the claim that man caused global warming, that means only 33 percent did.
 

Forum List

Back
Top