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
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.
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%
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.
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: » 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.
feargale wrote: » Says the man who thanked this:
dense wrote: » What we can agree on, is that of almost 12000 abstracts analysed, the researchers found that just 32.6% endorsed AGW.
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
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.
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: » 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.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Did the 86% endorse that climate-change wasn't AGW?
Akrasia wrote: » Your insistence that there is no consensus is a lie
Sweetemotion wrote: » Didn't 97% of scientists at one time also claim the the earth was flat?
dense wrote: » You said I lie.
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: » 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.
Akrasia wrote: » You're right, apart from all the studies showing a consensus, and the fact that every national academy of science, and every university science dept, and every scientific body of any relevance accepting the consensus. You're right, I'm grumpy because I can't demonstrate a consensus. Or maybe I'm angry that people like you lie and distort the facts on an issue that is literally life and death for millions of people alive today and future generations, not to mention the ecological catastrophe it will cause
dense wrote: » I could be wrong but it seems like you're reacting badly coming to terms with the fact that no scientific consensus has ever been demonstrated. Having read this thread, people can understand for themselves the fakery involved in climate science and the lengths to which activists will go to try to persuade people that a consensus exists. What might excuse or explain such behaviour would be an admission that no such consensus exists, but such is the weight and urgency of the problem that climate activists are forced to use every avenue to persuade the public that there is a consensus, even when there is not. The ball is in your court with that.
Akrasia wrote: » You might be doing it for free, but you're someone's useful idiot.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot I didn't have time to answer a telephone survey the other day, if the survey included a question about climate change, then by your definition, I had a chance to 'endorse climate change' and didn't, therefore I don't agree with the consensus view. You are a conspiracy theory motivated wingnut who is too dazzled by individual contrarian talking points to notice the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis. I normally don't get mad about people like you, if you want to believe in aliens or flat earth or oppose fluoridation of water, off you go, but climate change is serious and by the time it's so obvious that even people like you agree that it's happening, it will be way too late to do anything about it. I don't know if you believe the world is flat or not, if you do, i'm not surprised, if you don't you're not far off their level of scientific ignorance.
