UN making shit up again

[SSDD]

Weasel words Bullwinkle.. ALSO PART OF THE PLAN.. Go Ask Yahoo News where they got this BANNER Headline..

When you are a weasel, weasel words are all you have.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

It is likely that MORE than 97% agree with the IPCC. And, no, I did not get that from Skeptical Science. I got it from Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where you will find eleven different published - and in many cases peer reviewed - studies showing acceptance of the IPCC position in the high 90s

There is also the point that EVERY single science organization across the planet accepts AGW and the IPCC position as being correct and requiring action.

Where'd you get the idea that scientists don't agree with the IPCC? WUWT?

A wiki page as evidence for consensus?

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer
Science & Education
August 2013

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Furthermore, not all scientific associations back the IPCC position.

Clearly you have more dogma than scientific evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

Consensus polling has NOTHING to do with devious plans on the part of the UN to propangandize at the same time that they give their IPCC cover for not "staining" their reputation.. It's a calculated way to cover WHO is making outlandish claims about extreme weather events..

Guess the logical conclusion is that there is NO CONSENSUS about AGW effects on the current weather at the UN... Only dishonest
manipulation of the press.. A collusion that Abraham CLEARLY STATED that he supports..