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

[JimBowie1958]

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​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

That you dont understand basic English.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

 

[idb]

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​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

 

[idb]

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​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

Why can't you respond to my post analytically? You just did the defeated left wing disparagement routine.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And as long as AGW propagandists have to rely on the misnomer term climate change, in order to qualify cold snaps and warming inconsistencies, their agenda fails. It is greenhouse effect which means warming-only.

 

[idb]

And as long as AGW propagandists have to rely on the misnomer term climate change, in order to qualify cold snaps and warming inconsistencies, their agenda fails. It is greenhouse effect which means warming-only.

Yet more demonstration of misunderstanding.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

IDB is trying to pretend that 'not supporting' does not include 'dissenting' papers.

IT is as if we have say 30 football fan sites out of 100 who are Redskin fans, and one says that 70 are not Redskin fan sites.

IDB is in effect saying that those other 70 sites were about something other than NFL football and thus 100% of NFL fans support the Redskins. lol

The 67+% of other papers did not support human caused Climate Change. That leaves a full range of respondents from inconclusive to opposed to. That does not mean that they are neutral towards Anthropocentric Climate Change theory.

It certainly does not mean that one can just wipe them away and pretend that they do not exist as the Climate Change Warmistas have done and use only the papers that did support human caused climate change theory as the sole sample for deriving their bullshit 97% support number.

 

[idb]

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

Why can't you respond to my post analytically? You just did the defeated left wing disparagement routine.

Jeez...there's no way I can dumb it down any more for you without bringing out the crayons.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

Why can't you respond to my post analytically? You just did the defeated left wing disparagement routine.

Jeez...there's no way I can dumb it down any more for you without bringing out the crayons.

You are the one being dumb, no one else.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And as long as AGW propagandists have to rely on the misnomer term climate change, in order to qualify cold snaps and warming inconsistencies, their agenda fails. It is greenhouse effect which means warming-only.

Yet more demonstration of misunderstanding.

But you can't even rebut!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

Why can't you respond to my post analytically? You just did the defeated left wing disparagement routine.

Jeez...there's no way I can dumb it down any more for you without bringing out the crayons.

Again, you charge stupidity without even being able to rebut. You're a hypocrite.

 

[idb]

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!

A percentage of a select number in order to create a false, exaggerated figure.

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

IDB is trying to pretend that 'not supporting' does not include 'dissenting' papers.

IT is as if we have say 30 football fan sites out of 100 who are Redskin fans, and one says that 70 are not Redskin fan sites.

IDB is in effect saying that those other 70 sites were about something other than NFL football and thus 100% of NFL fans support the Redskins. lol

The 67+% of other papers did not support human caused Climate Change. That leaves a full range of respondents from inconclusive to opposed to. That does not mean that they are neutral towards Anthropocentric Climate Change theory.

It certainly does not mean that one can just wipe them away and pretend that they do not exist as the Climate Change Warmistas have done and use only the papers that did support human caused climate change theory as the sole sample for deriving their bullshit 97% support number.

So, if that 70% of papers don't offer an opinion on AGW because that's not what they were about...which column do you put them in?
Pro-AGW or anti-AGW?

Where would you put a paper that was about the effects on the habitat of a salamander after a particularly raucous climate change protest?
How should that be counted?

 

[idb]

And as long as AGW propagandists have to rely on the misnomer term climate change, in order to qualify cold snaps and warming inconsistencies, their agenda fails. It is greenhouse effect which means warming-only.

Yet more demonstration of misunderstanding.

But you can't even rebut!

I can't make it simple enough for you...I simply can't.

 

[idb]

Nope...read through again.

Tell me, what would be the point of including the papers that express no opinion because they were about a different topic?
What if you had a paper about camels but the text mentioned 'global warming' in context of one of the camels slipping on a global warming poster and injuring itself.
It might have turned up in the survey because of the search term.
It might have ended up in that 66.4% that was rejected.
How does it cause a 'false, exaggerated figure'?
Should that paper go in the pro or anti AGW column?

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

Why can't you respond to my post analytically? You just did the defeated left wing disparagement routine.

Jeez...there's no way I can dumb it down any more for you without bringing out the crayons.

Again, you charge stupidity without even being able to rebut. You're a hypocrite.

I've rebutted until my rebutting parts are bleeding.
Try reading what I've written.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And as long as AGW propagandists have to rely on the misnomer term climate change, in order to qualify cold snaps and warming inconsistencies, their agenda fails. It is greenhouse effect which means warming-only.

Yet more demonstration of misunderstanding.

But you can't even rebut!

I can't make it simple enough for you...I simply can't.

Again, you can't rebut while making hypocritical charges of stupidity.
Explain why the term climate change has been used when it is exclusively about warming.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Indifference in the realm of science is a negative. That is significant in its being discounted.

I knew it would be too hard...nobody can say I didn't try.

Why can't you respond to my post analytically? You just did the defeated left wing disparagement routine.

Jeez...there's no way I can dumb it down any more for you without bringing out the crayons.

Again, you charge stupidity without even being able to rebut. You're a hypocrite.

I've rebutted until my rebutting parts are bleeding.
Try reading what I've written.

You've rebutted nothing, phony.

 

[idb]

And as long as AGW propagandists have to rely on the misnomer term climate change, in order to qualify cold snaps and warming inconsistencies, their agenda fails. It is greenhouse effect which means warming-only.

Yet more demonstration of misunderstanding.

But you can't even rebut!

I can't make it simple enough for you...I simply can't.

Again, you can't rebut while making hypocritical charges of stupidity.
Explain why the term climate change has been used when it is exclusively about warming.

I'm bored now...I have more important things to do...like have a scratch.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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 did not, you moron.