They surveyed the dataset. Why is that so hard to understand? Just how fucking stupid are you? noun ˈsərˌvā/ 1. a general view, examination, or description of someone or something. "the author provides a survey of the relevant literature" synonyms: study, review, consideration, overview; More Here is what their survey of the data revealed... Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
FC, I've tried to make this point before, but failed. It doesn't matter, from a scientific perspective, what opinions are. The only thing that matters is the data, it's interpretation, the models, and whether the models not only agree with the past, but correctly fit the future data as well. We are not there yet, so why not just relax until we know a lot more. We aren't even to the point of being able to positively identify what's right and what's wrong. Though we seem to be honing in on that. (Scientists, like all other humans, have opinions. But Mother Nature pays no attention to them whatsoever!)
it was 97% of a subset. they picked 77 agw nutter authors and 75 of them believe in agw. you do not even understand what you are quoting.
where is the science showing man made co2 causes warming? who cares what an oil company says. but if you want to play this game... I will represent the most recent peer reviewed paper to play the game.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/ satellite image to show it is ocean temps which controls co2.
More science.... http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/11/21/G34843.1.abstract Study: Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller 3000-5000 years ago than today Posted on November 22, 2013 by Anthony Watts From the University of Buffalo Clues in the Arctic fossil record suggest that 3-5,000 years ago, the ice sheet was the smallest it has been in the past 10,000 years shells in a hand Shells from Greenland. By dating fossils like these, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today. Credit: Jason Briner Summary: Ice sheets are like bulldozers. As they grow, they push rocks, boulders, clams, fossils and other debris into piles called moraines. By dating ancient clams in moraines, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today. The technique suggests that the Greenland Ice Sheet was at its smallest point in recent history 3-5,000 years ago â information that could improve our understanding of how ice responds to climate change.
You must be blind or can't read or have a very short memory. Do I need to start again with the physical properties of CO2? Maybe you missed all of that science I presented on this very thread ? Your stupidity and ignorance of the obvious and overwhelming science in no way supports the statement that there is no science showing AGW. Being stupid is no support for a good argument.
The essential point is, by any reasonable metric, that 97% of the expert climatologists agree. You can slimy-lawyer it and play with semantics all you want but the essential truth remains. 97% Why do you deny the essential truth? Why are you so crazed? What the fuck is wrong with you?