Damn Global Warming....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antidisestablishmentarian said:
97% of the scientist don't agree.

2/3 of the scientific material says inconclusive or no.

Edit: 9 out of 10 doctors were in agreement to smoke camels. You buy that too?
Click to expand...

Yes, they do;

WaBHdsr.jpg


Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
 
I'd put up a face palm, but it's not enough.

Doran and zimmerman can't even do simple math.

Their own own survey breaks out to 94%. And that was on ~80 scientists. (They surveyed way more than 80. Over 3000 took it. Can you say cherry picked?)

Cook et all is the latest greatest 97% consensus survey out there(hint: they agree with you) And by their own data, 2/3 of published scientific opinion is inconclusive or GW is not occurring.

You believe what you want. You've been informed and can no longer claim ignorance.
 
Antidisestablishmentarian said:
Cook et all. 12000 papers reviewed. Less than 4000 said yes. The rest were no position(need more data)or no agw occurred.


"From the paper, of the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 there were 4014 that expressed a position on global warming. Of these 4014, 3896 papers or 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming, 78 or 1.9% disputed it and 40 or 1.0% indicated the cause was 'uncertain'. The remaining 7,930 took no position on current anthropogenic climate change."

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/cook-et-al-paper-confirms-97-scientific.html?m=1
Click to expand...

Antidisestablishmentarian said:
I'd put up a face palm, but it's not enough.

Doran and zimmerman can't even do simple math.

Their own own survey breaks out to 94%. And that was on ~80 scientists. (They surveyed way more than 80. Over 3000 took it. Can you say cherry picked?)

Cook et all is the latest greatest 97% consensus survey out there(hint: they agree with you) And by their own data, 2/3 of published scientific opinion is inconclusive or GW is not occurring.

You believe what you want. You've been informed and can no longer claim ignorance.
Click to expand...

Is this satire?
 
No, it's reality. You can review the papers yourself.

The one link I posted earlier is from those who believe as you. They show the numbers.

Cook et all reviewed approximately 12000 published scientific papers and divided them into categories:

1.agrees
2.disagrees
3.inconclusive.

Totals:
1.~4000
2.4(there are quite a few scientists who are in the next category that say their paper is a no.)
3.~8000

As you see, the numbers don't add up. If 97% of scientists actually agreed, the number in 1. should be much higher. Like ~12000.
 
"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."

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


32.6% support v. 0.7% oppose

66.4% inconclusive

...97% of climate scientists who have reached a reasonable conclusion, conclude that AGW is responsible.

Again.. those numbers do not surprise me at all. That is how science works.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
"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."

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


32.6% support v. 0.7% oppose

66.4% inconclusive

...97% of climate scientists who have reached a reasonable conclusion, conclude that AGW is responsible.

Again.. those numbers do not surprise me at all. That is how science works.
Click to expand...

Hey pada, as to the bolded - the devil lies in the details. That statement is so misleading. What you're arguing is 33% of the 97% agree.
 
beenthere said:
Is there any potential monetary incentive for scientists to agree that global warming is man made?
Click to expand...

Conflict of interest exists in any proposition involving 2 or more people, so yes, most likely

Having said that, the practitioners of the scientific method knew this, and incorporated a system of correction to ensure it doesn't happen. If you know anything about science and the way it works at all, you know you can't get away with lying to billions of people for decades as every individual person has the ability to test your claims. If the claim that climate change was man made was false, that 0.7% of scientists studying exactly that would be much higher. The ratio of scientists who accept it v. the ones that don't is so disproportionate it is obvious what the answer is to any reasonable person. The theory of evolution for fucks sake has more deniers than climate change, are you going to stand up and admit you don't accept the theory of evolution?
 
echelon1k1 said:
see how broad and generalised that statement is? Using the right terminologies you could just about have any scientist fit that bill
Click to expand...

Except for geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, biologists, chemists, anthropologists, etc..

People who get paid to study the climate are experts, if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting paid to do it. 97% of the experts who have conclusively reached a decision agree that AGW is the cause. At this point, denying it is tantamount to denying the theory of gravity

NoDrama said:
It's just a theory Pad, not a law.
Click to expand...

For fucks sake..
 
The whole global warming coming from man is nothing but BS ...
Its just another way for people to suck money from the gov in research grant.
I read where 1 guy got a 2 million dollar to go around with pods of whales analyzing whale farts. Said it would help to understand their eating habits. lmmfao
They've found 100yr old plant fossils that have been under ice since then. That just proves that it's bs, because there were no industries, or autos to cause it with so called greenhouse gases.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Except for geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, biologists, chemists, anthropologists, etc..

People who get paid to study the climate are experts, if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting paid to do it. 97% of the experts who have conclusively reached a decision agree that AGW is the cause. At this point, denying it is tantamount to denying the theory of gravity*

For fucks sake..
Click to expand...

you just lost me* when you invoked "super cereal man bear pig"...
 
97% against your interest - All LIES, 97% for your health - PLEASE GIVE ME THE MEDICINE!

You people are hypocrites.

Like I said before, the good thing about science is it doesn't give a shit what your opinion is, climate science will move forward without your asses and you will likely bitch the whole way there. Your grandchildren are welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

spliffendz
You've Heard of Vantablack. Scientists Just Created 'Super White', And It's Very Cool
Replies
4
Views
513
Renfro
Renfro
K
New colder temp our cannabis plants can survive
Replies
4
Views
490
Brettman
Brettman
Bear420
  • Locked
The Poles are Changing and our Government knows.
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
sunni
sunni
gotkush?
"Carbon dioxide global Climate change" is a hoax and fraud
9 10 11
Replies
217
Views
12K
ttystikk
ttystikk
subcool
If you Build it…They will Grow! by Subcool, The Weed Nerd
Replies
3
Views
2K
iPerculate
iPerculate
Back
Top