97% of Climate Science papers show that humans are responsible for global warming.

A meta study has concluded that 97% of the over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers from 1991-2011 take the position that there is a human cause to global warming. See this article.

I find this quote from the article very illuminating.

And of course, some media outlets are more guilty of this than others.

 

indeed you would think from listening to the media sources that there are two equally opposed valid opinions...there are two opinions but one is a politically and economically motivated tiny fringe...

a day a two ago my local daily paper ran an editorial piece on climate change backing AGW denial, the source for their scientific denialism, Benny Peiser ...nothing like good journalistic research to find an expert to quote, Peiser is a social anthropologist...

the paper has an economic/political agenda being the lone daily in a region where oil exploitation runs politics and the economy...

 

Most of these climatologists are basing their opinion off what they have been taught and what they have read, not their own research. Ever hear of publication bias? What about confirmation bias?

I am not necessarily saying the earth is not warming, but I am saying that the percentage of scientists who hold a certain opinion is not necessarily relevant.

 

Link? Anything?

 

Click on the word "article" and if my magic it will take you to the article.

 

2-3%


I am always amazed at these figures and this "peer review" business.

I've seen a lot of papers and never one peer review, just claims that they have been peer reviewed.

You know, I believed them in the 80's when they said there might be a problem, and got worried when they said we wouldn't be able to go outdoors without protection by the year 2010.

That didn't pan out and neither have any of the other catastrophic claims.

And then when I found out the "2,000" scientists everyone was on about who "peer reviewed" the IPCC report on climate change weren't all scientists, that most of them were civil servants and activists and that a good third of the scientists whose names were on the list had indeed made submissions, but they were in OPPOSITION to the report, not with it.

And then it seemed odd that every scientist who said "Wait, I'm not sure about these numbers" was accused of being in the employ of the oil companies.

And so, at the end of the day the team that says it is happening is making their living out of the fear that it is, they have lied and exaggerated. And if their claim about scientists being paid off by the oil companies then the corruption in all academia is so ubiquitous it's like politics, they're all full of bull poop....and the ones you DON'T listen to are the ones who get their pockets lined.

Ergo, if this planet IS heating up like that great Nobelist Al Gore insists, then it ain't man made.

Period.

Paragraph.

Turn out the lights.

You guys are like a cheating wife: "it's going to be different this time."

 

But, by even raising such an air of skepticism you endanger yourself to the accusation of "denier".

These are not rational people...this is the mentality that led to The Inquisition.

 

ya it is... in science consensus is required for a Hypothesis to move on to Theory, in science the definition of Theory means "accepted to be true"...the AGW hypothesis has withstood numerous challenges and is now accepted to be true...

 

Then you should have stopped reading the conspiracy theorists publications.
IPCC report was not peer-reviewed; it consisted of peer-reviewed studies. The rest of the paragraph misrepresents the reports.
No. The skeptical scientists were not able to provide data or observations which sufficiently backed their claims
No scientists are making a living from fear. Even if you believe that some scientists lied, the number of climatologists that have never been accused by the RW pseudo-scientists far outnumber the those who have alleged to have lied.

 

And at one time the "consensus" was that man couldn't exceed the speed of sound or survive a trip to the moon either.

 

Okay found it.. Why not just post the link so it's obvious.

The source listed in your article..

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

The bolded part tells the truth, the guardian is spreading inaccurate hype...

out of 11,994 papers searched for using the terms 'global climate change' or 'global warming' in their topics, 66% expressed no opinion on AGW theory. Neither pro nor con, just no position on the theory. But they DID discuss 'global climate change' or 'global warming' in their topic, meaning they were on topic and relevant. SO 66% neither pro or con, and 32% pro..

The claim of 97% came from those papers who were pro-AGW, the 32%.. So they are saying that of the 32% who agreed with AGW theory expressly, those polled agreed with the complete theory as put forth to the tune of 97%.. So 97% of those who agreed with AGW theory agreed with that theory completely... WTH????

The real number in agreement with AGW is 32%. How many agree and to what extent in that 32% are irrelevant, because they are still in the 32% group who agree with it. 66% didn't agree or disagree with it so the real concern here should be if 66% had no opinion be it pro or con on AGW theory, where is the consensus?

There is no consensus and this study showed it. They didn't like the results, so they spinned the analysis to sound different than it was... They couldn't just not publish they were funded by people visiting the "skeptical science" website, so they had to publish something. SO they spinned it..

LOL, love this media at it's finest..

 

You don't really understand the concept of peer review do you?

 

Another one with reading comprehension problems. Flintc already tried to explain it to one of your brothers: http://www.politicalforum.com/303161-climate-change-real-says-97-scientists-post
And I'm too lazy to do it again. If you still don't understand it. I'll give it a shot tomorrow.

 

No he didn't he just insulted the poster and kept on rambling...

The actual papers abstract I cited right there it tells you exactly what they did.. It's not my claim it's the actual papers abstract. You want to debate the papers abstract fine, but don't send me to another thread arguing the same thing as this one and claim somebody insulting another poster is an explanation..

I brought the papers abstract, you brought a link to a guy insulting someone and saying nothing, which do you think seems more likely??

 

Since the warmists like to play around with numbers - Morano has a link to this bit of logic...

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html

"The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:

that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% - 78

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The warmists are getting so pathetic now, lol... Hansen is a complete joke, Mann is trying to pawn himself off as a Nobel Prize winner, and Peter Gleick outright committed crimes in his attempts to besmirch the Heartland Institute.

AGW as a theory is nonsense - but there are literally $Trillions up for grabs; not to mention all of the puffed up egos and academic reputations at stake. The warmists will fight a nasty and bitter retreat as it becomes more and more obvious that their religion is a bunch of hot air

 

LOL and it's even worse the deeper you look.. Amazing they aren't called out on this by the entire scientific community..

 

Mainstream media is ran as a business and nothing else. It's all about ratings. They don't want to displease their customers by not keeping things even. That's why they don't even discuss it most of the time, because they just don't like controversial issues that could make a significant number of customers uncomfortable. This is one reason I laugh when right wingers try to claim everyone but Fox is liberal media. No, if they were liberal media, they'd be reporting on climate change all the time and they'd just have on scientists instead of brain dead republicans with absolutely no knowledge of the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you read? What's the thread title? "Climate science papers." Not opinions. Peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

Wow, horrible reading comprehension. From what you quoted:

The other 66.4% took no position, so they don't count. The only papers that count are the ones that took a position. Which means, the other 33.6% are the only relevant papers, which puts that percentage of total papers to 100% of relevant papers. Of the 100% of relevant papers, 97% supported AGW. Jesus Christ, stay away from numbers. You completely murdered the math there.

 

Okay lets assume its true the real issue is will the major polluter nations and rising nations like Brazil do anything to stop it? Very likely - no. At least until the impacts are so clear as to no longer able to be ignored and by then we would be forced in such nations into adapt to it and protect our own and screw everyone else.

So right or wrong it doesn't matter.

 

NO horrible reading comprehension from you..

"out of 11,994 papers searched for using the terms 'global climate change' or 'global warming' in their topics,"

Making your claim of the 66% being irrelevant completely unlikely. They were looking for papers that were specifically about 'global climate change' or 'global warming', meaning they weeded out those that did not discuss it. So the 66% percent just as they said had no opinion on AGW theory.Meaning 66% were on the fence about either the cause or the claims and chose not to take a side on it..

That means they were not a consensus by any measure..

You seem to think that only papers that picked a side should count. Well that would be fine if their search criteria weren't so specific to 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. The limiting criteria eliminated those off-topic, all that was left was near 12,000 on-topic. The 66% not picking a side shows that the majority do not pick a pro or con AGW stance, meaning no consensus among them.

Seriously, take off your blinders..

 

Not all research on 'global climate change' or 'global warming' has to do with AGW. The researchers were not interested in all research having to do with 'global climate change' or 'global warming'; they were only interested in the research within 'global climate change' or 'global warming' that had to do with AGW.
If a paper, say, studied the ice thickness a mya in relation to global warming, it would have beem included in the 66.4%. That paper "expressed no position on AGW". Why should a paper studying the ice thickness a mya be included in a study that counts the number of AGW papers?
Let's expand the search to include all papers in science between 1991 - 2011 instead of limiting it to the topic of "global climate change" or "global warming". Let's say there are 50,000 scientific papers between 1991 - 2011. Of all the scientific papers between 1991 - 2011, there is one paper studying, say, studying the mating habits of the Amazonian Tree Frog. Would you include that paper as relevant for determining the acceptance of AGW? Or would you exclude that paper because it has nothing to do with AGW?

 

So your claim is that their search in scientific papers for the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming' netted 66% that did not address 'global climate change' or 'global warming' ????

ROFL, really and exactly how did you reach this hypothesis? IF they are studying ice thickness as it relates to 'global climate change' or 'global warming' and states so in their topic, they are on topic and part of the research material. I ask again why include them in the numbers if they weren't relevant? It would be counter productive and give a false impression as well as con found the paper with nonsense.

The papers were relevant and on topic. They are the majority. They do what science is supposed to do and not jump to conclusions or back a theory from the outset. They state data and their interpretations of the findings, they do not come out in favor of a theory from the start because that clouds their results. The reason the pro-agw papers were only 32%, is the fact that only a relative few are actually forgoing science and picking a side first.

I'll put it another way.. If a paper with the topic 'global climate change' or 'global warming' did as you say talk about ice thickness or something, and therefore did not pick a side on the theory. They are showing that they do not deny nor support AGW theory in that paper, and therefore are on the fence as to the cause at least in terms of that paper. Meaning they are not necessarily a consensus by any measure be it either side..

SO again NO CONSENSUS.. You can color it any color you choose, or paint it with any brush you want, but the fact remains the majority show no consensus on it.

 

Missing the point entirely. This study didn't look at anyone's beliefs, it looked at actual research.

Being biased in favor of facts and against fallacy is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Still missing the point entirely. The cited study didn't look at anyone's beliefs. It looked at research.

 

Reviews aren't for publication, they're private. You'll seldom find even a quote from one in print. The point of peer review is to prevent obvious mistakes or irrelevancies from being published.

You're confusing two different issues. You're dimly recalling the ozone hole, which still exists. The reason it "didn't pan out" was because people recognized the danger and made an international agreement against CFCs, which stopped the ozone hole in its tracks. It's still a lot worse than it was in the 1950s, but that part of the planet, at least, is slowly repairing itself. But that success only happened because politicians listened to scientists, took the problem seriously, and took action to solve it.

You've been fed a line of BS, and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker. How exactly did you "find out" this incredible piece of crap? I'm guessing that it wasn't by actually talking to any of the scientists involved.

Really? Every one? Name three. (And please make sure the three you name really aren't being paid by Big Oil. Otherwise, you'd just end up looking foolish.)

Please point out one peer-reviewed study that contains a single lie or exaggeration. Just one: title, author, publication, and specifics on the lie. If what you're saying is true, this should be easy. But if all you're doing is spouting the BS you've been fed, I won't get an answer.

From which we conclude that there exists no evidence that can ever convince F&L of anything, period. From which we conclude that F&L's belief system is based on faith, not on science. From which we conclude that F&L isn't even qualified to comment on scientific evidence, because he wouldn't know science if it hit him in the face. Which it has. Repeatedly. Without making an impact.

And it never will.

There is nothing more of a waste than a closed mind.

 

Wow! Is that how you interpreted my post?
"Not all research on 'global climate change' or 'global warming' has to do with AGW. The researchers were not interested in all research having to do with 'global climate change' or 'global warming'; they were only interested in the research within 'global climate change' or 'global warming' that had to do with AGW."
Let me use your own words and let me fill in what you missed:
My claim is " that their search in scientific papers for the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming' netted 66.4% that did not address Anthropogenic 'global climate change' or Anthropogenic 'global warming' .
global climate change and anthropogenic global climate change are 2 different animals. Global warming and anthropogenic global warming are not the same.
100% of the papers addressed global warming/climate change. 66.4% of the papers addressed global warming/climate change but did not address anthropogenic global warming/climate change. 33.6% (32.6% + 0.7% + 0.3%) addressed anthropogenic global warming/climate change. Because the authors only wanted to determine the percentage of papers in relation to anthropogenic global warming/climate change, the only relevant papers were the 33.6%.
4013 (33.6%) of the papers addressed anthropogenic global warming/climate change.So these are the only relevant papers.The other 7931 papers had nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming/climate change so were not counted in a study to address anthropogenic global warming/climate change .