Not this crap again. We had a whole thread debunking that lie. The author of that paper... is an al gore sponsored whore and he won't reproduce the important part of his work. 1, The study cited in that article was completely debunked by a peer reviewed paper. 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 22:2007–2017, 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. ================================================================ UPDATE: – Cook and Nuccitelli paper rejected: Bishop Hill writes: The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal.
Libtards appear to be an idiot on EVERY topic. They have a "big government in control" agenda... and "the end justifies the means" in their eyes. So, THEY LIE ABOUT VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING!
Manmade global warming deniers are idiots. The denial of AGW my be the best single indicator of just how fucking stupid righties are.
The Cook study debunked in a peer reviewed journal. 1. Doran's survey started with 10,000 papers (or authors) and in the end they only considered the opinon of the 97 agw nutters who were printed in pro agw nutter journals. 2. Anderegg was a joke of a study. They only looked at "experts" published 20 or more times in agw nutter journals and then examined the most cited papers to develop their list. It was all complete b.s. 3, The study cited in that article was completely debunked by a peer reviewed paper. Cook is a whore sponsored by al gore who could not reproduce his results for his rebuttal to a this paper which was peer reviewed and showed him to be a fraud. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Fraudcurrents is one of those guys who confuses a fraudulent consensus for science. let us know when you have proof man made co2 causes warming in our current environment. You see the chart below shows co2 trails change in ocean temp by a year and land temps by about 9 months.