Most Non-Climate Scientists Agree on Global Warming Too

[Billy_Bob]

Here is a free link to the paper cited.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Springer

Further reading which shows the fraud is at : Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

Read the comments section. there are many more papers since this article which show Cooks fraud and those of others trying like hell to justify his deceptions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess the word "contributing", means its all man caused and catastrophic..You alarmists are hilarious projecting your own belief's on everything you read and failing to read objectively and look at what they are actually saying.

We are "contributing" to the global warming
If planet gets warmer, we are pretty much screwed

This is what they are saying

By suggesting to read "objectively", I guess you mean to read it while choking yourself so your brain dont get enough oxygen to understand anything?

Tell me... Were at the bottom of the temperature spectrum by geological standards.

View attachment 68170

The earth has spent much of its time way above the present temperature and way above the current ratio of CO2 to O2.

Reality is what has escaped you and most alarmists.

Tell me how man has or will create a condition the earth has not previously seen and thrived through?

That is unbelievably stupid!

Sane people are concerned for the well being and survival of the human race and the ecosystems and stable climate patterns that our civilization and our agricultural systems are very dependent on....which are severely threatened by the current CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

What happened naturally tens and hundreds of millions of years ago has almost no relevance to the current situation of un-natural human caused global warming.

Moreover, moron, your irrelevant chart covers many long periods where "the earth has not thrived through" at all.....periods of mass extinctions and a greatly reduced number of species, damaged biospheres, and holes in the ecology that took millions of years to restore themselves.

You are such a moron about this subject.

Your ignorance is stunning... but not near as stunning as those who still believe this horse shit.

Funny thing is , You and your ilk have yet to provide any proof of mans influence globally. To date there has been no proof that man has done anything quantifiable.

 

[alpine]

Here is a free link to the paper cited.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Springer

Further reading which shows the fraud is at : Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

Read the comments section. there are many more papers since this article which show Cooks fraud and those of others trying like hell to justify his deceptions.

Santorum’s Climate Consensus Claims

 

[Wyatt earp]

I guess the word "contributing", means its all man caused and catastrophic..You alarmists are hilarious projecting your own belief's on everything you read and failing to read objectively and look at what they are actually saying.

We are "contributing" to the global warming
If planet gets warmer, we are pretty much screwed

This is what they are saying

By suggesting to read "objectively", I guess you mean to read it while choking yourself so your brain dont get enough oxygen to understand anything?

Tell me... Were at the bottom of the temperature spectrum by geological standards.

View attachment 68170

The earth has spent much of its time way above the present temperature and way above the current ratio of CO2 to O2.

Reality is what has escaped you and most alarmists.

Tell me how man has or will create a condition the earth has not previously seen and thrived through?

That is unbelievably stupid!

Sane people are concerned for the well being and survival of the human race and the ecosystems and stable climate patterns that our civilization and our agricultural systems are very dependent on....which are severely threatened by the current CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

What happened naturally tens and hundreds of millions of years ago has almost no relevance to the current situation of un-natural human caused global warming.

Moreover, moron, your irrelevant chart covers many long periods where "the earth has not thrived through" at all.....periods of mass extinctions and a greatly reduced number of species, damaged biospheres, and holes in the ecology that took millions of years to restore themselves.

You are such a moron about this subject.

Yea we get it you can't deal with nature taking it's course like it has for millions and millions of years...


Again coloring book hero Climate change would FUCKING happen if we were here or not.

 

[alpine]

Still waiting for you to come up with facts and not your personal opinion...

Refute the graph of geological history!

I'll wait...

I dont have to refute anything when you "claim" you are refuting something that has a 97% consensus by the "scientists" on this planet.

You only can "claim" to do so, I am just laughing at you...

I just posted why your a liar.. with all the data as well..

I don't think you are a liar

You are just plain STUPID....

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh look, another one who has been duped by the 97% lie..

You must be talking to Crick and other alarmist idiots. I just presented geological history and facts.. You choose to counter that with an appeal to authorities you claim know better than the earth and its history itself..

By the way Cook Et Al has been debunked as a lie and deception.. Not scientific in any way.. But keep cherry picking what you want to believe and ignore facts..

Bullshit. Please provide CREDIBLE links to your opinions. NOT wishy washy, non-provable clap trap from the denier crowd. Take your time...

I supplied the paper... now take your bullshit propaganda somewhere else..

You supplied nothing. Just an opinion piece. The link in your post 14 doesn't even tell us how it came to the conclusion that only 0.3 percent agreed with the consensus - just that was the figure. They need to expand.

Just saw a serious climate debate on climate change. Not one of those alarmist shows where people are shouting at each other (Beck, O'Reilly or Hannity). Scientists - both climate and otherwise - said man is causing climate change. The evidence is irrefutable and anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Are you an idiot?

Before answering that, just remember you are on the side of those same kind of 'scientists' who say smoking doesn't cause diseases, or that fast food is good for you, there is no acid rain...I could go on... Read Merchants of Doubt. I know how you people work/think. You're just a bunch of fucking idiots who have no idea what you are talking about. You are the Donald Trump of climate change deniers...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for you to come up with facts and not your personal opinion...

Refute the graph of geological history!

I'll wait...

I dont have to refute anything when you "claim" you are refuting something that has a 97% consensus by the "scientists" on this planet.

You only can "claim" to do so, I am just laughing at you...

I just posted why your a liar.. with all the data as well..

I don't think you are a liar

You are just plain STUPID....

I think you have the corner market on stupid... gullible and an idiot among other things.. do you have a brain or are you capable of cognitive thought? Obviously not, as you still ignore the facts presented.

SO Come on and refute where we are in the geological history! I dare you!

 

[alpine]

Still waiting for you to come up with facts and not your personal opinion...

Refute the graph of geological history!

I'll wait...

I dont have to refute anything when you "claim" you are refuting something that has a 97% consensus by the "scientists" on this planet.

You only can "claim" to do so, I am just laughing at you...

I just posted why your a liar.. with all the data as well..

I don't think you are a liar

You are just plain STUPID....

I think you have the corner market on stupid... gullible and an idiot among other things.. do you have a brain or are you capable of cognitive thought? Obviously not, as you still ignore the facts presented.

SO Come on and refute where we are in the geological history! I dare you!

I don't refute your ignorance and stupidity.

A wrecking majority of scientists agree on the fact that humans cause climate change.

What is next on your agenda, claim earth is flat?
I bet you have some "geological history" to back that up too...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here is a free link to the paper cited.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Springer

Further reading which shows the fraud is at : Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

Read the comments section. there are many more papers since this article which show Cooks fraud and those of others trying like hell to justify his deceptions.

Santorum’s Climate Consensus Claims

Ok two questions and two questions only


1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?


2. How do we know the 97% agree?
To elaborate, how was that proven?






.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh look, another one who has been duped by the 97% lie..

You must be talking to Crick and other alarmist idiots. I just presented geological history and facts.. You choose to counter that with an appeal to authorities you claim know better than the earth and its history itself..

By the way Cook Et Al has been debunked as a lie and deception.. Not scientific in any way.. But keep cherry picking what you want to believe and ignore facts..

Bullshit. Please provide CREDIBLE links to your opinions. NOT wishy washy, non-provable clap trap from the denier crowd. Take your time...

I supplied the paper... now take your bullshit propaganda somewhere else..

You supplied nothing. Just an opinion piece. The link in your post 14 doesn't even tell us how it came to the conclusion that only 0.3 percent agreed with the consensus - just that was the figure. They need to expand.

Just saw a serious climate debate on climate change. Not one of those alarmist shows where people are shouting at each other (Beck, O'Reilly or Hannity). Scientists - both climate and otherwise - said man is causing climate change. The evidence is irrefutable and anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Are you an idiot?

Before answering that, just remember you are on the side of those same kind of 'scientists' who say smoking doesn't cause diseases, or that fast food is good for you, there is no acid rain...I could go on... Read Merchants of Doubt. I know how you people work/think. You're just a bunch of fucking idiots who have no idea what you are talking about. You are the Donald Trump of climate change deniers...

One more time for the moron...

Its simple math..

11,944 papers abstracts were reviewed.

Only 77 papers agreed with their consensus position generally. (3 of which dissented as well)

11,867 papers did not agree with their consensus position.

11,944/11,867 = 99.35% of the papers were thrown out.
11,944/11870 = 99.58% of the papers did not state man was the main cause...

Now where do you get 97.1% out of the majority papers stating man was the main cause.. What kind of common core math are you using?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still waiting for you to come up with facts and not your personal opinion...

Refute the graph of geological history!

I'll wait...

I dont have to refute anything when you "claim" you are refuting something that has a 97% consensus by the "scientists" on this planet.

You only can "claim" to do so, I am just laughing at you...

I just posted why your a liar.. with all the data as well..

I don't think you are a liar

You are just plain STUPID....

I think you have the corner market on stupid... gullible and an idiot among other things.. do you have a brain or are you capable of cognitive thought? Obviously not, as you still ignore the facts presented.

SO Come on and refute where we are in the geological history! I dare you!

I don't refute your ignorance and stupidity.

A wrecking majority of scientists agree on the fact that humans cause climate change.

What is next on your agenda, claim earth is flat?
I bet you have some "geological history" to back that up too...

That's up your territory, the Vatican once thought the earth was flat and now the pope believes in man made climate change...

Oh yea FUCKING bat shit crazy Naomi Klien is one of his advisors...


Naomi Klein~the man made climate change cult finnaly being honest




.

 

[Dr Grump]

One more time for the moron...

Its simple math..

11,944 papers abstracts were reviewed.

Only 77 papers agreed with their consensus position generally. (3 of which dissented as well)

11,867 papers did not agree with their consensus position.

11,944/11,867 = 99.35% of the papers were thrown out.
11,944/11870 = 99.58% of the papers did not state man was the main cause...

Now where do you get 97.1% out of the majority stating man was NOT the main cause.. What kind of common core math are you using?

That wasn't my query. I was stating that we have no idea who decided what the consensus position was/is and who decided whether it met that criteria or not? All you are doing is parroting their figures without giving important info:

1) Who decided those papers didn't meet the consensus position?
2) What was their criteria in deciding?

 

[Billy_Bob]

One more time for the moron...

Its simple math..

11,944 papers abstracts were reviewed.

Only 77 papers agreed with their consensus position generally. (3 of which dissented as well)

11,867 papers did not agree with their consensus position.

11,944/11,867 = 99.35% of the papers were thrown out.
11,944/11870 = 99.58% of the papers did not state man was the main cause...

Now where do you get 97.1% out of the majority stating man was NOT the main cause.. What kind of common core math are you using?

That wasn't my query. I was stating that we have no idea who decided what the consensus position was/is and who decided whether it met that criteria or not? All you are doing is parroting their figures without giving important info:

1) Who decided those papers didn't meet the consensus position?
2) What was their criteria in deciding?

incorrect;

Legates Et Al exposed the fraud and points out how the deception was carried out very precisely. Cooks crap should be withdrawn. Pal review and outright scientific malpractice is the theme of the day.. Read the Paper.

 

[alpine]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

 

[Billy_Bob]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

Another Cook type paper done like a poll, with leading questions, which looked for a specif result.

If you believe polling and targeting only those who think like you want them too is real science in any manner.. your high on something. Its like the democrat party polling themselves to see if they are winning...

The paper is crap! (and I have read it too) You want to try again? Pal review and outright scientific malpractice is the theme of the day..

 

[alpine]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

Another Cook type paper done like a poll and with leading questions which looked for a specif result.

If you believe polling and targeting only those who think like you want them too is real science in any manner.. your high on something. Its like the democrat party polling themselves to see if they are winning...

The paper is crap! (and I have read it too) You want to try again?

So scientists should have polled some message board junkies, rather than scientists themselves, to come to scientific conclusions ha

I see........

 

[Wyatt earp]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

Bwahaahahaha...


'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

A quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

 

[alpine]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

Bwahaahahaha...


'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

A quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

An oil rich economist saying climate change is not real and oil financed mag putting that up

what a shock

and you people claim you are not brainwashed

 

[Wyatt earp]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

Another Cook type paper done like a poll and with leading questions which looked for a specif result.

If you believe polling and targeting only those who think like you want them too is real science in any manner.. your high on something. Its like the democrat party polling themselves to see if they are winning...

The paper is crap! (and I have read it too) You want to try again?

So scientists should have polled some message board junkies, rather than scientists themselves, to come to scientific conclusions ha

I see........

Says the idiot who trys to back up the AGW cult with a thread called"
Most Non-Climate Scientists Agree on Global Warming Too"

Yea if you put Grant money in front of biologist I am sure they will agree the moon is made of green cheese....

 

[Wyatt earp]

The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.

The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.

But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.

The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.







You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........

Bwahaahahaha...


'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

A quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

An oil rich economist saying climate change is not real and oil financed mag putting that up

what a shock

and you people claim you are not brainwashed

Who said he said it's not real?

He challenged cook on the poll, that's what economist do jerk off.