Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Just more lies, that's where.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=84

 

[Crick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

 

[mamooth]

Some fine Cook Derangement Syndrome, most often found in McIntyre Cultists.

Deniers focus on people instead of science, and don't understand that the science doesn't depend on a single person. So they rage obsessively at Mann or Cook, thinking that if they can just bring down one man, all of the science can then be discarded, and their cult will triumph.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just more lies, that's where.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=84

Well now, perhaps you would care to name one Scientfic Society, one National Academy of Science, or one major University that has a policy statement that says that man has nothing to do with the warming since 1950. How about one, even from Outer Slobovia.

In fact, what you will find is that they all state that man is the major driver of the warming. And the more that the science within that discipline deals with climate, the stronger the statement that we are the cause, and the warming represents a clear and present danger.

 

[asterism]

Just more lies, that's where.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=84

Well now, perhaps you would care to name one Scientfic Society, one National Academy of Science, or one major University that has a policy statement that says that man has nothing to do with the warming since 1950. How about one, even from Outer Slobovia.

In fact, what you will find is that they all state that man is the major driver of the warming. And the more that the science within that discipline deals with climate, the stronger the statement that we are the cause, and the warming represents a clear and present danger.

Science by consensus of bureaucracies is no more valid than the consensus that the Earth was flat in the 1400s. Christopher Columbus was a skeptic.

 

[Zander]

Here she is is folks....the ultimate DENIER of climate alarmism.....

She refuses to validate the AGW quackery......that fucking bitch!

 

[Old Rocks]

Just more lies, that's where.

Well now, perhaps you would care to name one Scientfic Society, one National Academy of Science, or one major University that has a policy statement that says that man has nothing to do with the warming since 1950. How about one, even from Outer Slobovia.

In fact, what you will find is that they all state that man is the major driver of the warming. And the more that the science within that discipline deals with climate, the stronger the statement that we are the cause, and the warming represents a clear and present danger.

Science by consensus of bureaucracies is no more valid than the consensus that the Earth was flat in the 1400s. Christopher Columbus was a skeptic.

According to the church, not according to sailors and the people at the time that tried to do science. And the 'bureaucracies' that you speak of are voted in and out by the membership. As a student at a university, I have yet to meet anyone in the science disciplines that doubts the validity of global warming, or that the primary driver is the GHGs we have put into the atmosphere. And, yes, I do have membership in one of those Scientific Societies that has a very strong statement on global warming, the Geological Society of America.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here she is is folks....the ultimate DENIER of climate alarmism.....

She refuses to validate the AGW quackery......that fucking bitch!

silly ass

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[Crick]

Science by consensus of bureaucracies is no more valid than the consensus that the Earth was flat in the 1400s. Christopher Columbus was a skeptic.

Science by consensus of scientists is as valid as science gets.

And please don't come back with the assumption that scientists form opinions NOT based on scientific principles or the exercise of the scientific method. That would be what deniers do.

 

[jc456]

Some fine Cook Derangement Syndrome, most often found in McIntyre Cultists.

Deniers focus on people instead of science, and don't understand that the science doesn't depend on a single person. So they rage obsessively at Mann or Cook, thinking that if they can just bring down one man, all of the science can then be discarded, and their cult will triumph.

No, I focus on the science, and it says one thing and the observed says differently. And I believe the observed and you believe in the science. the science like you call it is based on a theory which to date has never made a test to prove the hypothesis of the models. The observed data shows the models are wrong. Plus, we have historical data that shows that between 1940 to 1970 the models would have been wrong then as well. So you have two observed data sets that tell you the scientific model is wrong and you continue to say the science is right and the observed data is I supposed wrong. I'll believe the science when it aligns to the observed. Until then, your argument here will go nowhere. Unless of course you have evidence to the hypothesis that shows adding 100PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperature. Again, simple test to me.

 

[bripat9643]

Science by consensus of bureaucracies is no more valid than the consensus that the Earth was flat in the 1400s. Christopher Columbus was a skeptic.

Science by consensus of scientists is as valid as science gets.

Dead wrong, asshole. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Scientists don't vote on which theories are true. Only a scientific ignoramus would dare to utter such an idiocy.

And please don't come back with the assumption that scientists form opinions NOT based on scientific principles or the exercise of the scientific method. That would be what deniers do.

Scientists are humans just like everyone else. Their opinions can be influenced by the same things that influence everyone else's opinion. Your attempt to claim they are some kind of superhuman without prejudices and biases only shows what a moron you are.

 

[Crick]

Science by consensus of bureaucracies is no more valid than the consensus that the Earth was flat in the 1400s. Christopher Columbus was a skeptic.

Science by consensus of scientists is as valid as science gets.

Dead wrong, asshole. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Scientists don't vote on which theories are true. Only a scientific ignoramus would dare to utter such an idiocy.

First, fuck you.

Second, scientific theories come to be accepted science when the majority of scientists believe they are valid. That comes about when experiments and predictions are successful, when falsifications fail. That is how one measures the successful application of the scientific method.

And please don't come back with the assumption that scientists form opinions NOT based on scientific principles or the exercise of the scientific method. That would be what deniers do.

Scientists are humans just like everyone else. Their opinions can be influenced by the same things that influence everyone else's opinion. Your attempt to claim they are some kind of superhuman without prejudices and biases only shows what a moron you are.

What I successfully claim is that they know their subjects and the application of the scientific method to those subjects far better than does the general public.

Tell me how you would determine whether or not mutually exclusive Theory A or Theory B are a better description of some physical phenomenon. You know nothing about the topic but the experts have been talking about these two theories. Many experiments have been performed, many predictions have been tested. Now the experts have all come to their own conclusions. How do YOU find out which is accepted? Ask Anthony Watts? Forbes? Rupert Murdoch? Telll us how.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science by consensus of scientists is as valid as science gets.

Dead wrong, asshole. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Scientists don't vote on which theories are true. Only a scientific ignoramus would dare to utter such an idiocy.

First, fuck you.

Second, scientific theories come to be accepted science when the majority of scientists believe they are valid. That comes about when experiments and predictions are successful, when falsifications fail. That is how one measures the successful application of the scientific method.

And please don't come back with the assumption that scientists form opinions NOT based on scientific principles or the exercise of the scientific method. That would be what deniers do.

Scientists are humans just like everyone else. Their opinions can be influenced by the same things that influence everyone else's opinion. Your attempt to claim they are some kind of superhuman without prejudices and biases only shows what a moron you are.

What I successfully claim is that they know their subjects and the application of the scientific method to those subjects far better than does the general public.

Tell me how you would determine whether or not mutually exclusive Theory A or Theory B are a better description of some physical phenomenon. You know nothing about the topic but the experts have been talking about these two theories. Many experiments have been performed, many predictions have been tested. Now the experts have all come to their own conclusions. How do YOU find out which is accepted? Ask Anthony Watts? Forbes? Rupert Murdoch? Telll us how.

And yet not ONE SINGLE test backs up the theory. None have been done not one. The observed does not conform to the theory and no one has done a test to prove the theory much less duplicate said test to show it is valid.

 

[Crick]

And yet not ONE SINGLE test backs up the theory. None have been done not one. The observed does not conform to the theory and no one has done a test to prove the theory much less duplicate said test to show it is valid.

Oh, Gunny, you missed the big news. The boys at Mythbusters tested it out. It's on You Tube. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

Science by consensus of scientists is as valid as science gets.

Dead wrong, asshole. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Scientists don't vote on which theories are true. Only a scientific ignoramus would dare to utter such an idiocy.

First, fuck you.

Second, scientific theories come to be accepted science when the majority of scientists believe they are valid. That comes about when experiments and predictions are successful, when falsifications fail. That is how one measures the successful application of the scientific method.

You put the cart before the horse. They are accepted because they pass all the tests applied to them. They aren't deemed to be true because a majority of scientists accept them. Furthermore, AGW hasn't passed any of the tests. One of the most basic tests of a theory is that it can predict the result of changing the inputs. AGW has failed that test 100 times.

And please don't come back with the assumption that scientists form opinions NOT based on scientific principles or the exercise of the scientific method. That would be what deniers do.

Scientists are humans just like everyone else. Their opinions can be influenced by the same things that influence everyone else's opinion. Your attempt to claim they are some kind of superhuman without prejudices and biases only shows what a moron you are.

What I successfully claim is that they know their subjects and the application of the scientific method to those subjects far better than does the general public.

Irrelevant. They are still subject to all the imperfections of every other human on this planet. Their biases and hidden agendas often blinds them to the truth.

Tell me how you would determine whether or not mutually exclusive Theory A or Theory B are a better description of some physical phenomenon. You know nothing about the topic but the experts have been talking about these two theories. Many experiments have been performed, many predictions have been tested. Now the experts have all come to their own conclusions. How do YOU find out which is accepted? Ask Anthony Watts? Forbes? Rupert Murdoch? Telll us how.

Simple: you determine which theory passes the tests and which doesn't. A theory having absolutely no predictive value is a gross failure of the tests.

 

[westwall]

Just more lies, that's where.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=84

Well now, perhaps you would care to name one Scientfic Society, one National Academy of Science, or one major University that has a policy statement that says that man has nothing to do with the warming since 1950. How about one, even from Outer Slobovia.

In fact, what you will find is that they all state that man is the major driver of the warming. And the more that the science within that discipline deals with climate, the stronger the statement that we are the cause, and the warming represents a clear and present danger.

Who cares. Appeals to Authority are logical fallacies and have no merit. Try again.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet not ONE SINGLE test backs up the theory. None have been done not one. The observed does not conform to the theory and no one has done a test to prove the theory much less duplicate said test to show it is valid.

Oh, Gunny, you missed the big news. The boys at Mythbusters tested it out. It's on You Tube. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

It appears they tested an atmosphere of pure CO2 and pure Methane against an atmosphere of normal air. That's hardly a valid test. Try comparing an atmosphere lacking C02 with one having 0.04% C02. You won't see any difference in the temperatures.

I could point out all kinds of other errors in their experimental method, but that should be sufficient to cast this one on the scrap heap.

 

[Crick]

It appears you have a comprehension problem. They tested a nitrox mixture against a nitrox mixture with 350 ppm CO2 and another with 1800 ppb methane.

 

[Crick]

As to validity, my glee at seeing this accomplished by Mythbusters is due to the lack of scientific sophistication required to demonstrate a physical process you have all declaimed as physically impossible.

 

[Stephanie]

the cultist in gloBULL warming pulled that number from their ass

why not just make it 100%

people fall for this crap from the like's of Albert Gore, Obama, and politicians who has no formal education on the climate, weather, etc