Once again you try and shoot the website... when it is the facts you should be addressing... here is a link to the peer reviewed paper... it shows that only 41 papers out of more than 11,000 support the consensus that... Man had caused most post-1950 warming. So FC you can lie your ass off all you want. You have no science and you have no consensus. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 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 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ 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.
even cook himself admitted... this in his abstract... http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article 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 1991â2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,
Richard Tol @RichardTol Follow Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral. 1:43 AM - 22 May 2013 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ording-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
Dr. Idso, your paper âUltra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphereâs seasonal CO2 cycle?â is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; âImplicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing itâ. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: âThat 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 atmosphereâs 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 lionâs share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.â http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ording-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
Dr. Scafetta, your paper âPhenomenological solar contribution to the 1900â2000 global surface warmingâ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; âExplicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%â Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Scafetta: âCook 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. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ording-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
Just like you can see there is a long list of of scientists in every group which is not accounted for when you and fc claim their groups are pro agw nutter... eh?
So in your own words, can you explain the above in a few sentences? I mean, you were/are a lawyer so I assume your reading comprehension is pretty good. Can you tell us what this means?
excerpt from above ; Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years
which is why I just showed you some of the authors of the papers themselves stated cook mis attributed their papers. finally... how many times do I have to tell you... almost every one agrees man has done something the issue is whether man made co2 causes measurable warming.
NASA employs heat and air repairmen along with janitors. It doesn't make them climate experts just because they work for NASA.