What, exactly, do deniers think warmists are asserting?

[flacaltenn]

It has been posted here many times. Go look it up. I have better things to do than waste my time doing your work for you.

But you can start here.....

The 97% ?Consensus? is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists? | The SPPI Blog

Nice cop-out. I won't hold it against you because whenever you're pushed you back down.

Regarding the much repeated 97% consensus, it did not come from 79 surveyed folks. It is from a much broader range of a multitude of studies. Yours happens to be funded by Big Corporate Money. If you want specific references to 97% consensus, click here.

Here is another scientific assessment of the literature, revealing 97.2%

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.

BTW, did you notice your source's name was "HockeyStick." Not a credible peer reviewed blog. Don't you understand that information is a fabrication and I've just proven it with peer review publishing. Wake up you stubborn goober.

Hey "stubborn goober" --- Did you notice the "lead authors" on your IOP link? These are SAME GOOBERS that hacked up the FIRST discredited "97% poll" you referenced. Cook and Nutti..

They are the propagandists behind the Skeptical Science site. ONLY MARGINALLY scientists and definitely not PUBLISHED in hard science of ANY KIND. Yet they are "INTERPRETING INTENT" of science statements. And misusing statistical tools to make a political statement.

I've got 3 high-ranking scientists that have discredited ALL of this horseshit from Cooked and Nutti.. Including the Tol guy who just dissed the IPCC for misinterpreting his work..
It's trash.. Just like their phoney science website..

 

[jc456]

It has been posted here many times. Go look it up. I have better things to do than waste my time doing your work for you.

But you can start here.....

The 97% ?Consensus? is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists? | The SPPI Blog

Nice cop-out. I won't hold it against you because whenever you're pushed you back down.

Regarding the much repeated 97% consensus, it did not come from 79 surveyed folks. It is from a much broader range of a multitude of studies. Yours happens to be funded by Big Corporate Money. If you want specific references to 97% consensus, click here.

Here is another scientific assessment of the literature, revealing 97.2%

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.

BTW, did you notice your source's name was "HockeyStick." Not a credible peer reviewed blog. Don't you understand that information is a fabrication and I've just proven it with peer review publishing. Wake up you stubborn goober.

BS junior. Pure un-adulterated BS. You're as kooky as GISMYS. Makes sense, you're both religious fanatics.

I'm so tired of the answer peer review. No, let's see the evidence of the actual condtions. Where is it in film, the high seas, the hot ocean depths? let's see the ice sheets falling off in Greenland to the point that there are no shelves left. LET US SEE IT.

 

[Abraham3]

Go look.

 

[westwall]

Go look.

We already have. You fail. So do your drones. Cook is bloody comic book editor. THAT is the level to which you have sunk.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You ask what we think you are claiming. You are claiming that MAN caused the less then 1 degree raise in temperature that occurred from the 80's to 1998. You claim that CO2 caused it. Yet from 1998 to 2014 there has been no raise in world wide temps and CO2 has continued to go up.

Your claim is false proven so by the last 16 years.

 

[Abraham3]

You ask what we think you are claiming. You are claiming that MAN caused the less then 1 degree raise in temperature that occurred from the 80's to 1998. You claim that CO2 caused it. Yet from 1998 to 2014 there has been no raise in world wide temps and CO2 has continued to go up.

Your claim is false proven so by the last 16 years.

Our "claim" wasn't proven false when temperatures plummeted between 1941 and 1979. Why should this be more significant? And how can you even think about making this argument when direct satellite measurements show that the Earth is still accumulating heat. Do you understand that point Gunny? We keep repeating it but it's as if you've all got selective deafness. A planet whose climate was in thermal equilibrium would radiate into space precisely as much heat as it received from its sun. The Greenhouse Effect warms a planet by trapping some of that solar energy: LESS heat is radiated away than is received. BY DIRECT SATELLITE MEASUREMENT, THAT IS TAKING PLACE, HERE, TODAY. Claiming that the Earth is not being warmed by the Greenhouse Effect in the face of that evidence is like telling the cop you're a teetotaler and have had nothing to drink between healthy slugs from a half-empty whiskey bottle.

ps: it's not MY claim. It's the expressed conclusion, based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies, of 97% of the world's climate scientists.

 

[IanC]

skeptics are in a tough position. we have to work within the framework of consensus science. when a skeptic produces a list of insufficiencies or outright errors they are often immediately 'rebutted' by one of the senior figureheads of climate science but when the original skeptic rebuts the 'rebuttal', silence ensues.

the latest example of this is Nic Lewis's criticism of the IPCC's treatment of climate sensitivities. because it got some publicity it had to be rebutted but now that several comments have been placed in the public sphere, the dialogue seems to have come to a halt. Gregory claims that Lewis's methodology substantially underestimates sensitivity but when Lewis responds by showing that all three of Gregory's claims are proven false by standard consensus science, there is only resounding silence. down the road there will only be Lewis's paper and a rebuttal. Skeptics will point to one and warmers will point to the other, and depending on which side you are on you will only believe one. legitimate debate is very difficult from the skeptics position because there is no one willing to debate.

another example is McIntyre's struggle with dismantling Mann's hockey stick graph. when McIntyre produced a graph with corrected proxies, and then with corrected methodologies, with strict covenance that they were NOT alternative paleoreconstructions but simply examples of Mann's mistakes, climate science then proceeded to act as if they were reconstructions and simply ignored all the problems that they showcased. climate science has a long history of either ignoring or purposely misunderstanding legitimate criticisms.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

skeptics are in a tough position. we have to work within the framework of consensus science. when a skeptic produces a list of insufficiencies or outright errors they are often immediately 'rebutted' by one of the senior figureheads of climate science but when the original skeptic rebuts the 'rebuttal', silence ensues. * * * *

LOL

Everyone knows that science is a stern discipline firmly grounded on majority rule.



Ian made me to laugh.