Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50?

+6
Floridatexan
boards of FL
ZVUGKTUBM
2seaoat
Sal
Hospital Bob
10 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

In another thread,  Pkr posted this...

_________________________

That 97% number is just more bs:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.

In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.

Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².

So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.

The survey is titled:

Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

Yes: Mostly human Yes: Equally human and natural Yes: Mostly natural Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause] Yes: Don’t know cause Don’t know if global warming is happening Global warming is not happening

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers

_____________________

What say you?  Do you agree with Pkr that the 97% figure is just a load of steaming horseshit that was pulled totally out of thin air and is just a damnable lie?

Guest


Guest

I already tried this Bob... it was dismissed out of hand because the term meteorologist was used instead of "climate scientist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meteorology

Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere. Studies in the field stretch back millennia, though significant progress in meteorology did not occur until the 18th century. The 19th century saw modest progress in the field after observing networks formed across several countries. It wasn't until after the development of the computer in the latter half of the 20th century that significant breakthroughs in weather forecasting were achieved.

Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate, and are explained by the science of meteorology. Those events are bound by the variables that exist in Earth's atmosphere; temperature, air pressure, water vapor, and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Different spatial scales are studied to determine how systems on local, regional, and global levels impact weather and climatology.

Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences. Meteorology and hydrology compose the interdisciplinary field of hydrometeorology. Interactions between Earth's atmosphere and the oceans are part of coupled ocean-atmosphere studies. Meteorology has application in many diverse fields such as the military, energy production, transport, agriculture and construction.

Sal

Sal

A survey of weather guys with nice hair is at odds with 97% of peer reviewed scientific research.

Consensus dead.


Sal

Sal

From the American Meteorological Society, no less .....



Increasing numbers of broadcast meteorologists, to whom the public looks for information and guidance on climate change and global warming, are not offering scientific information but rather, all too often, nonscientific personal opinions in the media, including personal blogs. Alarmingly, many weathercasters and certified broadcast meteorologists dismiss, in most cases without any sold scientific arguments, the conclusions of the National Research Council (NRC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other peer-reviewed research."

[...]

The expertise of scientists actively researching climate change is well beyond that of most professional meteorologists, some of whom may only have basic training in weather analysis and forecasting. Nonetheless, the public sees media meteorologists as experts.

Guest


Guest

See? They would rather believe a group of non scientists interpreting published papers than the actual authors.

http://climate.engineering.iastate.edu/whatisclimatesciences.html

While historical/predictive models may not be an average field for most meteorologists... climate scientists are meteorologists.

The ones I take most interest in are the study of atmospheric particle dynamics... while a lacky like sal eats what he's fed.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I think both of you are doing the same thing most people do.  You both have a pre-conceived notion and all you're interested in learning about is whatever information you can find to support the pre-conceived notion.
You two are doing it and so are people in academia and media.
And the result of it is that I cannot have confidence in any of it pro or con.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:I think both of you are doing the same thing most people do.  You both have a pre-conceived notion and all you're interested in learning about is whatever information you can find to support the pre-conceived notion.
You two are doing it and so are people in academia and media.
And the result of it is that I cannot have confidence in any of it pro or con.

It's an easy choice, Bob.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/28/taylor-distorts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

You can either choose to believe the science, or you pick around the edges looking for fringe groups who distort and misinform in a concerted effort to sow seeds of doubt.

But, random internet guy read an article on atmospheric particle dynamics, so I can see where you'd be confused.


lol

2seaoat



Utter nonsense, as I posted in the other thread next thing you know PK and Chrissy will be asking Alan Strum to visit the forum as the Climate science person.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

And the result of it is that I cannot have confidence in any of it pro or con.

Yes, and those who declare "unbelievers" as heretics really don't strengthen the cause. Remove the politics from the issue and stop treating it as if it were some sort of religion.

Some climate-change proponents are so radical that they want to outlaw petroleum-development, leaving most of the world's remaining oil in the ground. While I favor renewable/alternative energy, I also know that such a move could not be made without condemning much of the current world  population to death by starvation.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



But, random internet guy read an article on atmospheric particle dynamics, so I can see where you'd be confused.


The best part is that he thinks the noon weather lady, Chrissy, and himself will set the scientific community right. I love this place.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote: Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50?


No.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:But, random internet guy read an article on atmospheric particle dynamics, so I can see where you'd be confused.


The best part is that he thinks the noon weather lady, Chrissy, and himself will set the scientific community right. I love this place.

She and I and others here discuss the science and new developments... I'm not even sure why seagoat or sal or boards bother to read these threads or reply. Has anyone here ever seen one of them interject a scientific thght to this topic?

Let's have a tiny test... is water vapor or co2 the bigger driver of atmospheric temperature?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:What say you?  Do you agree with Pkr that the 97% figure is just a load of steaming horseshit that was pulled totally out of thin air and is just a damnable lie?


Read the responses to the first time he posted that article.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t14859-ice-still-on-lake-superiorglobal-warming-my-arse


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:What say you?  Do you agree with Pkr that the 97% figure is just a load of steaming horseshit that was pulled totally out of thin air and is just a damnable lie?


Read the responses to the first time he posted that article.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t14859-ice-still-on-lake-superiorglobal-warming-my-arse

What's your point? The 97% wasn't peer review... it was an interpretation of scientific papers by some dudes.

That doesn't equal a scientific consensus... the scientists didn't vote or were even consulted. Apparently that's all it takes.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

The focus here should be on climate CHANGE, not "warming". We are in denial if we don't pay attention to POLLUTION, as we did in earlier decades. We have too many chemicals poisoning our water, soil and air. There are many ways to change outcomes, if every person does their part. And what we're probably looking at is more weather extremes...

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:What's your point? The 97% wasn't peer review... it was an interpretation of scientific papers by some dudes.


Actually, the 97% does in fact come from a peer reviewed paper accepted for publication on 04/22/13 and published for peer review on 05/15/13.  It has since stood up to critique.  You would know this if you read the underlying paper that I posted for you the last time you posted your poll of meteorologists. Here it is.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article


PkrBum wrote:That doesn't equal a scientific consensus... the scientists didn't vote or were even consulted. Apparently that's all it takes.


From the abstract of the underlying peer reviewed article:

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


Here again, if you simply read the information that has already been provided to you before (hell, if you even did your own cursory research) we wouldn't have to waste time on the same debunked arguments again and again.


And to pre-emptively respond to your next post, which I'm sure will be "Oh yeah!?  Well what were the results of the study when the original scientists/authors were asked to rate their own work?!?! Huh?!?!?!"  

Sure, let's look at that.

Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGW endorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 ± 0.09% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.20,p = 0.04 for abstracts, 0.35 ± 0.26% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.26,p = 0.02 for self-ratings), with both series approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? Erl460291f3_online


Let me know if you need help interpreting any of that.  Reading clearly isn't your strong suit.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Minimizing pollution is a great cause... there's certainly a consensus for that... and a role for govt involvement.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:What's your point? The 97% wasn't peer review... it was an interpretation of scientific papers by some dudes.


Actually, the 97% does in fact come from a peer reviewed paper accepted for publication on 04/22/13 and published for peer review on 05/15/13.  It has since stood up to critique.  You would know this if you read the underlying paper that I posted for you the last time you posted your poll of meteorologists. Here it is.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article


PkrBum wrote:That doesn't equal a scientific consensus... the scientists didn't vote or were even consulted. Apparently that's all it takes.


From the abstract of the underlying peer reviewed article:

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


Here again, if you simply read the information that has already been provided to you before (hell, if you even did your own cursory research) we wouldn't have to waste time on the same debunked arguments again and again.


And to pre-emptively respond to your next post, which I'm sure will be "Oh yeah!?  Well what were the results of the study when the original scientists/authors were asked to rate their own work?!?! Huh?!?!?!"  

Sure, let's look at that.

Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGW endorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 ± 0.09% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.20,p = 0.04 for abstracts, 0.35 ± 0.26% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.26,p = 0.02 for self-ratings), with both series approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? Erl460291f3_online


Let me know if you need help interpreting any of that.  Reading clearly isn't your strong suit.

Let's begin by your helping me with table 4 please. Then I could use some help with the way cook uses the word "endorse" in polling to quantify the scientists acceptance that climate change is agw. I can spit in the ocean and the consensus would be that I increased the volume. Like I've always said... there are too many variables and information limitations for a definitive statement of scientific fact to be drawn here... I don't give a damn about some hokey interpretations by agenda driven zealots.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Let's begin by your helping me with table 4 please. Then I could use some help with the way cook uses the word "endorse" in polling to quantify the scientists acceptance that climate change is agw. I can spit in the ocean and the consensus would be that I increased the volume. Like I've always said... there are too many variables and information limitations for a definitive statement of scientific fact to be drawn here... I don't give a damn about some hokey interpretations by agenda driven zealots.


I'll be happy to help with this, but before we proceed I must insist that you first stand corrected about your previous comments.   You now concede the the 97% figure does in fact come from peer reviewed work, correct?  And you now also concede that many of the original authors were in fact contacted and asked to rate their own papers, correct?

You now agree that you were completely full of shit when you made the following comments, correct?

PkrBum wrote:What's your point? The 97% wasn't peer review... it was an interpretation of scientific papers by some dudes.

PkrBum wrote:That doesn't equal a scientific consensus... the scientists didn't vote or were even consulted. Apparently that's all it takes.


Once we get past this little hurdle, I'll be happy to help you digest the underlying paper.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

You offer something and then want conditions... I didn't even ask you a science question and you cave.

Tell ya what... keep your 97%... and fuck off.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:You offer something and then want conditions... I didn't even ask you a science question and you cave.

Tell ya what... keep your 97%... and fuck off.


I want you to be intellectually honest.  That is all.  And being intellectually honest entails conceding when you are wrong - as you are clearly wrong here. If that is beyond your scope, well, fair enough.  I don't think anyone here expected much more from you.

All that said, I do think it hilarious that what you take away from this exchange is that I somehow caved.  You made two objectively wrong statements that I instantly blew out of the water.  When I ask you to man up to that fact, you declare checkmate and tell me that I caved.   Par for the course for a resident of Libertopia, I suppose!


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html?m=1

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Update 1: Dr. Tol also found problems with the classifications
Update 2: Dr. Morner, Soon and Carlin also falsely classified

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,

Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"

On Twitter Dr. Tol had a heated exchange with one of the "Skeptical Science" authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli,

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so."

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?"

Update 2: Dr. Morner, Soon and Carlin also falsely classified,

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."



Last edited by PkrBum on 6/24/2014, 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

How some people can be so dumb is beyond me.

The 97% is referring to how many scientist who participated in a peer review program at QUEENS COLLEGE.

Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and founder of the website skepticalscience.com, had led a team of researchers who reviewed scientific papers about climate change. The peer-reviewed survey, published by Fairfax Media, concluded that more than 97 per cent of researchers on climate change endorsed the view that humans are to blame for global warming, the Morning Herald said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/17/obama-tweet-gets-australian-researcher-31-5-million-followers-on-twitter/
and

is the finding of a University of Queensland-led study that surveyed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific papers from 1991-2011 and claims to be the largest peer-reviewed study of its kind.

Of those who a stated a position on the evidence for global warming, 97.1 per cent endorsed the view that humans are to blame. Just 1.9 per cent rejected the view.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html#ixzz35arYOAo0


so it is NOT accurate to say that 97% of all scientist agree man created climate change.

But you could say that 97% of people who participated in the Queens univ peer reviewed study agreed.

Do you understand the difference?

I didn't think so Rolling Eyes 

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html?m=1


I would counter this by pointing out the fact that 60% of the authors were contacted and asked to rate their own papers, though you clearly deny that fact and have yet to concede that you were wrong about it.

I suppose we are at an impasse; unless of course you are now ready to man up and concede that you were wrong when you said...

PkrBum wrote:What's your point? The 97% wasn't peer review... it was an interpretation of scientific papers by some dudes.

PkrBum wrote:That doesn't equal a scientific consensus... the scientists didn't vote or were even consulted. Apparently that's all it takes.


Is there anything you care to say at this point, PkrBum?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Ti wrote:so it is NOT accurate to say that 97% of all scientist agree man created climate change.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum