Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uqUa_G1h3pw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

you have to understand academics.

1. the first part about agnotology is just academics delighting in esoterica and delivering veiled insults.

Here we see Agnatology can be the the study how propaganda can become the accepted wisdom and these guys are pointing out the irony of an agw nutter pretending to be on the side of truth.

2. Next... (I love this one.)

The following put down is exceptionally sweet and would put many academics on the floor rolling.

"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."

translation for fc --- only morons think that a consensus of scientific experts means anything. Every thinking person with a phd understands that it is only the science that matters.


3. The meat of the paper is then delivered -- only .3% endorsed the standard definition of consensus: that man has caused most of the warming since 1950.

---

here is what you asked me to explain.

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10...1191-013-9647-9

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.

\

 

What? That makes no sense.

I can believe that it is possible that Cook may have misattributed some, however the authors were also asked point blank and still, 97% agreed. So your deflection is, once again irrelevant to the greater truth. Once again, you are allowing a propaganda website lead you around like a mindless sheep.

the fact is that among meteorologists that study climate, it is 93%..... per the above study cited. There is NO question among the experts that man HAS caused measurable warming. 97% of them are sure of it. Your saying that they don't know if man has caused measurable warming is just plain wrong, and you know it.

 

I'm curious, FC. Recently, there has been increased speculation, including by some in NASA, regarding similarities to the current sunspot min and the Maunder Minimum. Of the AGW models that were developed, how many included this type of data? My understanding is that the amount of solar variation's effect on climate is essentially a developing research area, and not well understood. It doesn't dispute man's contribution to warming, but certainly would have a huge impact on the outcome of predicted warming (or even cooling), wouldn't you agree?

 

Well, that wasn't too bad but you missed some very essential things.....


1. Yes, agnotology is what you and Watts a dozen other Koch bros funded websites and the Heritage Foundation do.....

Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

2. Yes, reality, or the actual facts, are not dependent on what people think. Duh. But the best way to determine what the current state of the science that describes reality, is to go by plurality. This is the way science has always worked. When say, 97% of the scientists agree, it is usually correct science. The science textbooks are not written with the 3% opinion.

3. Your "meat of the paper" ,the 0.3 % figure is indeed illustrative. It illustrates that surveys are highly dependent on definitions and that agnotologists like you will go to great lengths to spread disinformation.

For instance. If one defines that to be included in the 97% consensus that the paper must expressly say" the warming is dangerous", well then nearly all papers will of course not make the grade as it is not within most paper's purpose to do so. And that is only one of the absurd hurdles to be included in the 97% that is in the definition. The whole paper is behind a firewall and can't even be read. I wonder why.

In short, the paper is a hit piece of contorted "reasoning" put out by the agnotologists of the denier machine. It was not even published in a climate or science related journal but instead was in an education journal.


I'm not even going to mention that Monckton is a fraud and not a trained scientist and is generally laughed at by real scientists.


So thanks for letting me clear things up for you.

 

Kinda like you here at ET huh.

 

3. you keep go back to the word "dangerous" the paper went on to say then even accepting the weaker definition of consensus... that man has caused more than 50% of the warming since 1950... only 41 out of over 11000 papers endorsed the consensus.

.3 percent.

2. the consensus is that there is no consensus and that even if there were it would not mean anything. The science is what is important and the science shows Greenhouse gases cool (and warm)..

 

But we don't know what their definition really is do we? That's because they don't want us to know because the definition is absurdly narrow.

Yes the science is more important than surveys. Too bad you refuse to really understand that CO2 in balance warms the lower atmosphere and that 97% of the climate scientists are in consensus on the basic facts of AGW.


Basically you are just a miserable deluded ideologically twisted low-life fucking douchebag liar.

Why do you hate people so much?