dense wrote: » Maybe you need more time, because you don't seem to know what you're saying now. By the way, I haven't lied about anything here and I've been fairly kind to those who have made errors, correcting them and giving them the benefit of the doubt. You said I lie. Point out a lie. And given that climate change is so important to you, what are you doing to reduce your own carbon footprint? Oh, I've just remembered. Nothing. Which, from my experience is universal to those who profess most concern about it, it's always someone else's responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint.
Dakota Dan wrote: » So there you have it, a mathematician clueless about climate science knows it's real.
jackboy wrote: » We can stop human causes of climate change but we cannot stop natural causes of climate change. There will always be massive climate change and there is nothing we can do about it.
dense wrote: » You said I lie.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Didn't 97% of scientists at one time also claim the the earth was flat?
Akrasia wrote: » Your insistence that there is no consensus is a lie
feargale wrote: » Says the man who thanked this:
Dohnjoe wrote: » Did the 86% endorse that climate-change wasn't AGW?
Dakota Dan wrote: » They gave no response so where did they get the 97% from? It was just a nice round figure that they pulled out their arses.
Pherekydes wrote: » If you go back to post #205, Dense posted the following: "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." So the calculation is: 32.6/(32.6+0.7+0.3) = .97 = 97% It's an actual calculation, not just some random figure pulled out of someone's arse.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » We keep pointing this out, they keep saying the figure is just plucked. Or we heard it from our teachers. This is literally the only debate on the Internet I’ve seen where someone links to something that refutes his main point, keeps linking to it, keeps getting schooled about it and yet keeps arguing the same discredited points. He also doesn’t understand samples or Bayesian mathematics. Haha. I mean if he doesn’t get percentages.
Dakota Dan wrote: » Yet the conclusion is that 97% of the worlds scientists agree which is total nonsense.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.
The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Semantics There are millions of scientists in the world, naturally not all of them are climatologists, meteorologists Of those relevant scientists (who between them write a wide variety of papers on the subject) a portion have written a specific paper which comes to an overall conclusion on the subject 97% of those conclusions point in one direction The argument for AGW is scientific consensus The argument against is a play on semantics and numbers
dense wrote: » What we can agree on, is that of almost 12000 abstracts analysed, the researchers found that just 32.6% endorsed AGW.
dense wrote: » I get it now Franz, you think 97% of 32.6% is greater than 66.4%.
But you're also making things up. Please link to where it says in the study that That is something that you have made up, because you have no idea what was actually in the papers beyond the search terms the authors used to search the abstracts.
Whilst we have been told that they were all "climate papers", neither of us know whether they discussed reasons for anything, because the only words we do know they contained were in their abstracts and those words were 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.
If you have something to show that any of the studies show that they discussed the reasons for it I'd like to see it.
Because, in Table 1, the research papers are categorised and none of them are listed as being research into the reasons why climate is changing. What we can agree on, is that of almost 12000 abstracts analysed, the researchers found that just 32.6% endorsed AGW. Do you want to suggest it is flawed research?
If you do I might agree. It's disastrous for anyone trying to demonstrate a consensus.
dense wrote: » , Wrong 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW. In the same study, the vast majority of scientists contacted by the authors, (86%) made no response when invited to rate their position on AGW. Keep it coming guys.
dense wrote: » Do you genuinely not realise that this 97.1% figure you're quoting is just 97.1% of the papers that expressed a position on AGW? It is not 97% of the papers that were analysed, nor is it 97% of scientists.
Dohnjoe wrote: » From the papers that provided a conclusion Well explained herehttps://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 90% to 100%, the average is around 97%
Grayson wrote: » Strangely 97% of climate scientists agree. It might be more because it's based on papers published. So if the paper agreed with the IPCC findings that climate change is real, caused by man and it's getting worse then it's in that 97%. I believe that something like 0.3% of the papers disagreed with the IPCC. the result did not express an agreement or disagreement. So there's 2.7% of climate scientists that might agree with the IPCC, it's just that they never expressed it in their papers. But we can say 97% agree, 0.3% disagree.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » No I fully realise that. Firstly i never claimed 97.1% of scientists. I said 97.1% of papers that expressed an opinion because those are the only papers that matter
Dakota Dan wrote: » What about the other 2.7%?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I’m suggesting that it showed that 97% of papers addressing the causes of climate change said that human activity was the cause.
Table 1. Definitions of each type of research category. Category Description Example (1) Impacts Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity '...global climate change together with increasing direct impacts of human activities, such as fisheries, are affecting the population dynamics of marine top predators' (2) Methods Focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included in the other categories 'This paper focuses on automating the task of estimating Polar ice thickness from airborne radar data...' (3) Mitigation Research into lowering CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels 'This paper presents a new approach for a nationally appropriate mitigation actions framework that can unlock the huge potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in dispersed energy end-use sectors in developing countries' (4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people's views on climate 'This paper discusses the use of multimedia techniques and augmented reality tools to bring across the risks of global climate change' (5) Opinion Not peer-reviewed articles 'While the world argues about reducing global warming, chemical engineers are getting on with the technology. Charles Butcher has been finding out how to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas' (6) Paleoclimate Examining climate during pre-industrial times 'Here, we present a pollen-based quantitative temperature reconstruction from the midlatitudes of Australia that spans the last 135 000 years...'
Dohnjoe wrote: » Semantics There are millions of scientists in the world, naturally not all of them are climatologists, meteorologists
