97% Consensus is a lie.]/b] Hereâs the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that donât, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, thereâs nothing else to call it â a lie of presidential proportions. From the original press release about the paper: Exhibit 1: From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain. Exhibit 2: âOur findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.â I pity people whose argument is so weak they have to lie like this to get attention, I pity even more the lazy journalists that latch onto lies like this without even bothering to ask a single critical question. Of course try to find a single mention of that 32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports, or on Cookâs announcement on his own website. Though, some people are asking questions, while at the same time laughing about this farce, such as Dan Kahan at Yale. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
lets accept your stats... you know why you mix in co2 with the other greenhouse gases in that article? because it is the other greenhouse gases which do almost all the warming. Water Vapor... clouds they are the green house gas which does almost all the warming. co2 does only a small part of the warming. and man made co2 only does at best a small part of 1% of the warming. When you realize man made co2 probably blocks more heat in the upper atmosphere than man made reflects back down to the earth in the troposphere... you realize why age nutter like you never engage in science... just alarmist bullshit.
FC, you do realize, don't you, that no one with any scientific training questions the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is one of the contributing gases. That's settled science! Also there is strong evidence that the Earth is, or has been, in a warming period. The unsettled issue is the importance of anthropomorphic CO2 versus the total of CO2 and whether CO2 or T is the independent variable. (I don't think even Jem questions the greenhouse effect, though I sometimes wonder? )
Hell I live in San Diego... I know our nights are colder when we do not have cloud cover. Would I be surprised if water vapor kept the heat in? Why would I question the idea clouds can keep the heat in? I questioned the idea that there was science showing man made co2 made us warmer. I don't even have dog in this hunt. If they proved co2 caused warming I would be like well then lets do something about it. In fact why not. But, lets not transfer wealth and spend billions on climate bullshitters. I am all in favor of clean environment. I volunteered my time for clean water campaigns. I just can't stand big govt transfer the wealth baloney. Nor do I like it when people spew bullshit and call it science.
These are very interesting statements and largely true! Even the last statement is true, as far as I can tell. There is a consensus among climate experts, but it is perhaps 60/40 or maybe even 70/30, but no where near 100%. The other interesting thing is how much gnashing of teeth, prevaricating, hedging, back peddling, shouting, screaming, name calling, and just plain nastiness we may see from the 97%, who had no business jumping on the anthropomorphic band wagon in the first place. Scientists, especially those with the big reputations, often have egos to match. (I should know!) I can't wait to see how this plays out, but I won't be at all surprised if those "who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes" turn out to not have understood them very well at all. That 97% you write of had better fasten their seat belts. The next few years is going to be a very bumpy ride for them!
Truth will out eh. You recognize greenhouse gas aerosols cause an anthropic change in temperature outside natural variation. But conveniently, the release of billions of tons of greenhouse gas CO2 into the atmosphere, decade after decade after decade, won't. You'd do what exactly? What you do now no doubt. Deny it...spew bullshit and call it science.
What would be most likely is, you have no-life. Spending your time making angry post after angry post , starting thread after thread, day after day. And you think I'm a troll. Lol Yeah sure. You have a grounding all right , in bullshit. As I said. Your suspicions are as defective as your reasoning. What flawed concept? You haven't a clue have you. All you can do is rant and insult. Dr Salby's conclusion is, in the real world global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2. Exclusively!? So global temperature is controlled by CO2 to some extent. To the extent of man made CO2 emissions as observed. So even here at this basic level, which is unfortunately way above where you are, he raises obvious areas which require questioning. He presented a hypothesis to be scrutinized. Not a scrutinized hypothesis. You understand science? Fat chance. You don't even understand basic reason.
That is still the point. A conscenus exists among climate experts and it isn't that global warming is not man made.
And every year it erodes. It's mostly the orgs rather than the scientists now. The actual number from the study that looked at the papers claiming a 97% consensus actually says only about 33% support AGW. Most have no opinion. So, the AGW'ers are just promoting a lie. From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain. <img src=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LaJoT32kSGQ/Sw_I5yDy7iI/AAAAAAAAAV0/DIHacMtwwA4/s640/GLOBAL-WARMING-CARTOON.png>