Greenpeace Founder: Climate Change Is Bogus
- Thread starter Sand4x105
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so in other words, of the papers that expressed an opinion on AGW, 97.024% endorsed anthropogenic global warming (much the same as you do).
thanks for clarifying that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's only 2.083333333333% true.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
it's 66.4% true.
GOD HERE
Well-Known Member
"Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
Did you reading compensation fail u Keynes? In other words, of all the papers on climate change (the subject in question) that reached a conclusion, 97.2% supported the conclusion that climate change is man made. 2.8% did not. Not all studies express a comprehensive opinion, which is something you seem to have glossed over.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how is taking no stance on AGW a denial of AGW?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
check with asia paper and pulp, it's pretty well documented.so paper pulp comes from old growth rainforest...
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
As Etch, and Beenthurr would say,"....stop picking on my sugar daddy's penis......"
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Your freebie was enough for me.
Unless I'm reading your citation wrong, it clearly states that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW and 32.6% endorsed AGW.
The 97% number comes from those who took a position, so much for you 97% consensus.
And what a joke, the lead author of your coveted citation admits he's not even a scientist, he's a cartoonist..
The website Skeptical Science which is plastered all over your Harvard citation, is not a site run or owned by scientists, but the brainchild of a a fucking cartoonist.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] 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 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Burn........................
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Burn............
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You sure, cause the lead author of Godhere's citation is a cartoonist, not a scientist, a fucking cartoonist. lulz.....
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Only 32.6% took a position, moron.
There's a sucker born every minute.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Funny story: pulp and paper companies are in the business of actually creating "forests".
Plant and harvest pines in rotations.
You make it like they are tree pirates. Last pack of toilet paper or sheet of plywood you used was from the rainforest?
You fall for everything on amazon? Carbon credits too?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wow.
you are mining the depths of stupidity.
About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.
some of the other authors of the peer reviewed citation provided are...
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.
Mark graduated with a Master in Physics degree from the University of Durham, UK before becoming a part time Arctic explorer and full time PhD student at the UK's National Centre for Earth Observation.
Andy Skuce is a recently-retired geophysical consultant living in British Columbia. He has a BSc in geology from Sheffield University and an MSc in geophysics from the University of Leeds. His work experience includes a period at the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh and work for a variety of oil companies based in Calgary, Vienna and Quito. Since 2005, he worked as an independent consultant. Andy has published a handful of papers over the years in tectonics and structural geology that can be viewed here. He described how his views on climate change evolved in this blog post.
woooooops.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how does that support your position of AGW denial in any way?