97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

Robson gives much better detail in the video to describe exactly what level of consensus exists on what specific climate questions. There is definitely a high level of scientific consensus that:
1. The earth's surface has warmed significantly since the Little Ice Age ended ~200 years ago;
2. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas that makes the earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise be, much as a blanket makes a person warmer in bed;
3. Atmospheric CO2 has increased primarily as a result of our use of fossil fuels;
4. Human activities, including CO2 emissions, have contributed to the increase in global surface temperature.

There is a much lower level of scientific consensus, often far less than 50%, that:
5. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is the principal driver of variations in global surface temperature;
6. Increasing atmospheric CO2 by continued use of fossil fuels will cause substantial increases in surface temperature above the limits of natural variation.
7. Increased CO2 and surface temperature would involve net harms to earth's human population.

 

I suspect it's a cooked up number, or claimed based on 97% of scientists agreeing on something, not necessarily that this or that climate change claim is true.

 

The 97% number came from them examining peer reviewed papers and according to their research, 97% of the papers agreed that man was a major factor in climate change. However, because of political bias, it is likely that a lot of papers disagreeing were written but not approved for publication. In addition, some of the authors of those that were claimed to support AGW, said that was not the intent of the paper.

The went to a lot of trouble manipulating data to get the answer they wanted.

 

More like they're peddling it to promote the LW ideology/propaganda.

 

One thing, I suspect, is that quadrupling the world population over the past century is a problem.

 

Not sure about "bringiton" but certainly don't have much faith in your ability .. having failed numerous times in Science category .. especially on environmental issues and environmental microbiology ..pretending to have a clue about the Flue ... not good with stats and a not shown ability to learn which is problematici

That said this is a bogus OP .. 97 concensus on what ? which question is being referred to as there is not just one aspect of climate change and there are varying opinions all over the map .. so you might get the broken clock bonus

 

What about your nonsense fact are folks supposed to be incapable of dealing. This is not a rational statement to begin with and obviously false right out of the gate if taken seriously.

"Always Warming" --- No .. the Earth has not always been warming .. some years it warms ..other it cools .. and by what measurement of warming are you refering to .. an irrational statement on many levels.

 

Well, perhaps. I'm not a fan of Ad Populum arguments.

I tend to discount a lot of such claims because I don't see the proof

Did they?

 

If human activity is causing some (or all) of the warming, four times as many humans accelerates the process. At the very least, all the extra people burdens our resources.

 

It would have been much simpler to just have sampled a large number of scientists. Instead they used a Mickey Mouse procedure which was more difficult, but would be less reliable by its very nature because by doing it that way, it added an element of subjectivity. It was would have been more objective to just sample the scientists. That should be sufficient proof.

 

I'd look first at making money.

 

I guess the percentage has some relevance to something.

 

Tedious crapola from you. Bye.

 

BTW, this respirator is effective protection against catching covid.


P100 respirator

Tedious crapola from you. Bye.

 

Name calling from the cross ... har har har .. backside still smarting ?

 

Really.

What influence did mankind have on the Younger Dryas?

We're only 11,000 years out of that ice age that lasted 2.5 MILLION years ffs.

 

I have no idea how they came up with 97% or that the figure is worth spit.

 

why are you pretending I said otherwise ? speaking of projecting "Tedious crapola" mate .. indeed your strawman fallacy .. and false accusations as excuse for an argument is tedious indeed ..

 

Can't stand being wrong about respirators? Woe is you.

 

The claim had its origin in a research paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

The 97% consensus paper is starting to fall apart
2013 › 05 › 27 › the-97-consensus-paper-is-starting-to-fall-apart
suggest that Cook et al 2013 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific ... evident, which when accounted for bring the 97% consensus figure into question.

 

Your mixed up ... got things all backwards mate.. turned out to be you who doesn't understand airflow through an orifice .. which is understandable . not many do .. but, why you making things up about me being wrong .. I do not know.

What is it that you figure I was wrong about har har har .. can't belief you have slunk back to this previous crucifixion .. wallowing in previous pile of vomit .. have nothing but to make false accusations .. defaulting to strawman fallacy pure falsehood.

come - on mate .. tell us what I said that was wrong ..

 

Absolutely, and that is why the 97% taken from those two abstract studies is so harmful to discussion around the issue.