Well, I performed the Google search you suggested, and checked every result on the first page. Every single one of those hits referred back to the same Popular Technology page and the same 8 or so scientists. I can't find the "hundreds" of scientists you referred to. Please provide another source.
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html Do really believe that humans have a 97% consensus on any topic? Do you actually believe that scientists have a 97% consensus on AGW. Have you read Dr. Judith Curry's feedback about this nonsense (she is the head of of the Climate Department at Georgia Tech). The only time we see a 97% consensus is when a dictator holds an election. Of course, anyone voting against them is imprisoned or shot. Nearly each article on the false classification from Cook contains a different list of scientists stating their papers were not properly classified. This is because the response to this came over a number of months as different media sources contacted different scientists. ------------------ http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...cent_claim_four_problems_with_cook_and_obama/ I emailed a sample of scientists who’s 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"… Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. Geography; Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 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.” Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D. Physics; Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team 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.... 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...” Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysics; Associate Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel 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)… 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.”
Hopefully everyone is aware that Skeptical Science was previously hacked in 2012. The hack exposed a wealth of information on the funding, marketing, members, fabrications, and attempts to drown-out and attack "deniers" by using a "crusher crew" organized by Skeptical Science. For example take a look at this thread from Cook & followers on how to forcefully market the 97% consensus nonsense. http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-01-19-Marketing Ideas.html Or go to the top level to get all the Skeptical Science data and forum info - http://www.hi-izuru.org/ Skeptical Science's organized attacks on skeptics to get them fired is particularly enlightening - http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Climate Misinformers/ The Truth about Skeptical Science http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
The Abstracts Survey The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004). We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary). We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence). Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below. Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching forexplicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24. We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements. We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'. The 97% Consensus Results Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun? This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists "...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees" However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper. We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011. Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. From Cook et al. (2013). Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongstclimate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009)surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewedclimate publications. They found that: "≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with thetenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]" In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. This is greater than 97% consensus of peer-reviewed papers because endorsement papers had more authors than rejection papers, on average. Thus there is a 97.1% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, and a 98.4% consensus amongst scientists researching climate change. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment amongst scientists about whether global warming is happening, and if so, its causes and probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed insynthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.[1] The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5] National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7] Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8] The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9] The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and otherglobal change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10] Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change, however, policy decisions may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14]updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
The deniers are lying. Plain and simple. GWB and jem are liars. The other righties who deny it here are too stupid to assign conscious lying to.
Posting your talking points over and over again, eh? Did Skeptical Science tell you to post these yet again today to "drown out the deniers"? Got to be sure only posts supporting Climate Change are the most recent, eh? Let's take a look at Skeptical Science Re-Writing History - https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
I take it back, you are not smart enough to assign lying to. You're just stupid and deluded. That leave jerm as the only actual liar among the denialists.
You have been insulting people for years on this forum while re-posting the same material over & over hundreds of time - never anything new. Obviously you are not capable of having a rational discussion about climate change - nor are you capable of interpreting scientific data... much less read the sources that someone posts if you disagree with it - yet you spew the same rebutted talking points continuously.
You are a piece detritus fc. calling people liars who post peer reviewed science... Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.