Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

It is 2013 and you STILL fail to comprehend the difference between a SURVEY and a study of abstracts of papers to infer a position on AGW.

BTW if a paper takes no position on AGW that does not mean they support AGW -- which is what Cook's study of 12,000 papers did.

 

This was the first post on the thread stu. It showed you that Cooks paper was fraudulent.

The paper was a peer reviewed debunking of Cook lies.

And Cooks rebuttal was rejected as trash.

 

This hurricane season is on track to be the least active in 30 years. No heat no hurricanes.

 

Yeah, no. It really is 97%.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/


“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013


The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

 

• W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
  
  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
  Abstract.... "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Fisrt you claim ..."There is no other source for this over-hyped figure from global warming promoters."

Then when given one, you try ...."This is NOT a survey."

Just like the .03% claim is false and absurdly so and you don't need to be Einstein to see why, all you are doing is attempting to find controversy where it doesn't exist.

Of course as with anti-evolutionists and no-moon-landing conspiracies , that's what AGW denial is all about .

 

Reading extracts and infering a position on AGW is NOT a survey -- no matter how much you want it to be.

 

WORLD NEWS
October 15, 2013, 2:39 a.m. ET

Man Seeks Refugee Status in New Zealand Over Global Warming
Pacific Islander Claims Rising Sea Levels Have Made it Too Dangerous to Go Home

By LUCY CRAYMER

"WELLINGTON, New Zealand—Swelling numbers of refugees fleeing strife-torn regions of Asia for safer havens in developed economies have barely caused a ripple in New Zealand. Last year, just 324 people claimed asylum—fewer than in small European states like Macedonia or Montenegro.

"But a case due before a judge in Auckland, New Zealand's biggest city, focuses on a novel type of asylum seeker: those seeking refuge from rising sea levels linked to climate change.

"A 37-year-old man from the tiny Pacific island of Kiribati is claiming refugee status in New Zealand on grounds that global warming has made it too dangerous to return to his homeland. The man cannot be named under a New Zealand immigration law designed to protect asylum seekers.

"Earlier this year, New Zealand's immigration tribunal rejected the argument in a closed-door hearing, but the man is appealing that decision in the country's High Court on Wednesday.

"Kiribati is one of the world's lowest-lying nations. Comprising a group of coral reefs and one island that straddles the Equator, most of the country is only one or two meters above sea level. Worries over the impact of rising sea levels prompted the Kiribati government to buy 6,000 acres of land in neighboring Fiji earlier this year to grow food and potentially resettle part of its 100,000 people if the country were to become uninhabitable."

More>>

 

Most of what is assumed by "science" is a joke. They claim that they calibrate the strata by the geologic column. In another part of the textbooks they claim that the geologic column is calibrated by the strata. That is fantasy calibration based on circular reasoning and the argument should get an "F" grade in philosophy 101 but it's given an "A" in the evolutionary sciences... I feel good about this: I'm free to believe whatever seems best and free to prove it by how many times my world view leads me to correct thinking. You on the other hand have to wander around in the dark waiting for "science"'s next great revelations... LOL