Climate sensitivity

to be more exact, the 97% comes from the Doran poll http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists, only 3146 completed the survey. 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer reviewed publications in the past 5 years had been on the subject of climate change. Those 267 people are where the 97% number comes from. Methinks if you sent a survey to 267 Ford dealers asking whether you should buy a new Ford or a new Chevrolet you would get 100% response saying Ford. Stupid poll that is frequently misquoted by the AGW shills to imply that 97% of the scientists in the world think AGW is a real concern. If your science was valid you would not have to lie and fearmonger to convince people

 

BULL(*)(*)(*)(*)!.

This guy says 97% of scientists agree



And one of the scientetists he claims agree told Mr NAZI and his friends that their study was a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*).

IPCC author Richard Tol is a hell of a lot more qualified to comment on his own work than would be NAZI and cartoonist John Cook.

 

Even the 97% only an opinion.

 

You don't honestly expect our resident catastrophists to plough through a 937 word letter that proves them all to be sheeple, do you?

 

for thousands of years 97% of the medical community thought bleeding was an effective medical practice. Some trivia but that scientific consensus was most likely the cause of George Washington's death

 

Priceless.

 

Come up with a better poll that isn't a standard denialist joke, where they come up with the opinion of some PHD that specialized in Athletes Foot. LOL

 

anything I came up could not be more of a joke than asking 267 people who make their living off a theory whether that theory is valid LOL, only thing that surprised me in that poll was 3% said no

 

Vetted scientists can't afford the risk of faking it. 267 scientific specialists in climate science is a fairly good sample for a fairly small group.

 

Glad you asked because there have been AT LEAST 2 research studies proving it

 

There have been two bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims if it that were easily proven frauds.

Can't reduce 10,000 surveys down to 77 and you cant review abstracts on your own and conclude what the authors position is.

Its pure frauds so stupid people who cany make a scientific argument can parrot 97% agree because they are too stupid to do anything else.

Its not science its propoganda for idiots.

 

If you feel that strongly about it why not put it all in an academic rebuttal article and get it published?

 

Dont need to. No one in science took it seriously in the first place.

It served one purpose. So stupid people on the internet could scream 97% because they are too dumb to do anything else.

It wasnt written for science it was written to make very stupid people feel better.

Only very stupid people eould think that reducing 10,000 down to 77 has any scientific validity.

 

If it was a theory it could have substance, but it's still an hypothesis.

 

Cite one or both if you can?

 

Try Google scholar
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=consensus+climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

 

Timothy Casey

[h=2]Consensus science, or consensus politics?[/h]
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rcatorbg15&div=12&id=&page=

 

We've shown 6 ways to Sunday that the 97% fraud is just that - a fraud; yet you alarmists persist. You're amazingly dishonest.

MIght I suggest that you just give up that ghost when trying to debate those of us who actually follow the science, and save that propaganda BS for the completely ignorant masses who skim read your nonsense and accept it like the unthinking, gullible dupes they are.

Those of us who know how the 97% figure was arrived at, know full well that it is simply par for the course for you alarmists - propaganda, misdirection, shout loud enough, smear the truth... it is designed to ensnare the average moron. It is pointless to continue to spout that nonsense at those of us who have actually looked at the methodology of how the number was arrived at. It is nonsense.

 

Glowbull warming since 1880:

 

Like most fundamentalist true believers, denialists feel if they shout it from the roof tops it must be true. Volume and decibels trumps facts and logic and the well known practice of sampling. That's how we can have polls. Sorry I can't make it simpler.

 

The old tactic of accusing your adversary of what you yourself are guilty of?? lol...

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

From the paper,

"The last word on the paper goes to Professor Mike Hulme, founder of the Tyndall Centre, the UK's national climate research institute:

The [Cook et al] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed, and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into catagories of 'right' and 'wrong' to that adopted in [an earlier study] dividing publishing climate scientists into 'believers' and 'non-believers'.

"It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate discourse. Haven't they noticed that the public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?"

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

"... poorly conceived, poorly designed, and pooly executed."

That kind of sums up global warming "science" in a nutshell doesn't it?? lol... In that sense, I guess it is appropriate that you would continue to cite such nonsense.

The truth is - no amount of facts or emperical evidence will move you watermelon activists to accept the truth and act honestly. You are dishonest, and intellectually dishonest.

The end may justify the means to you poor deluded souls, but there is nothing but shame and disgrace for you. No honest, informed person accepts your nonsense.

 

Those who belong to the Glowbull warming religion will have no regrets when they're eventually proven wrong, they'll still maintain that the cause was worth fighting for, because it might have been catastrophic.

 

The Cook article does what it is intended to do, to show that there is a near consensus among climate scientists that human caused global warming is happening. Anyone who has read the endless blathering of denialists is aware that there is a huge number of paranoid conspiratorial head in the sand folks who reject AGW totally. Cook offers the view from his studies that climate scientists almost all accept AGW just like most biologists accept evolution. All Hulme does is complain that Cook hasn't refined his poll to determine the rate of global warming each of the parties believes is happening. Why doesn't he initiate those studies? How anemic to whine about a poll that provides good information but not all the bells and whistles you wish were there. Anybody is free to do a poll. Why don't you offer your own Hulme? What an absurd fellow.

 

"We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic."

"The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all."

"The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go."

Lennart Bengtsson

 

Before waving the flag in Cooks defence perhaps you would do well to check his credentials for making determinations about the state of climate science today.

This in his own words.

I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

Do you really trust the scientific integrity of an activist blogger cartoonist just because he says what you want to hear ?