More on the 97% farse.

[rushmc 18]

http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/03/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-agw-consensus-is-a-fantasy/#sthash.mY3IeN7j.dpbs

Quote

240 papers already in 2016 Now updated for the first 6 months of 2016, a review of the literature has already uncovered a list of 240 papers published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals that support a skeptical-of-the-consensus position,

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#sthash.bwGuBB2I.99A70aAE.dpbs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,915]

You should have been a tobacco company lawyer. Where were you when they needed you?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 622]

That word doesn't mean what you think it does or I missed you being Catholic.

[gowlerk 1,915]

normiss

That word doesn't mean what you think it does or I missed you being Catholic.

rushmc is very conservative in most things. But not in spelling and grammar. In that area he is a flaming liberal.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,635]

gowlerk

***That word doesn't mean what you think it does or I missed you being Catholic.

rushmc is very conservative in most things. But not in spelling and grammar. In that area he is a flaming liberal.

He is very unconventional in reading comprehension and rational analysis too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,406]

>240 papers already in 2016 Now updated for the first 6 months of 2016, a review of
>the literature has already uncovered a list of 240 papers published in peer-reviewed
>scholarly journals that support a skeptical-of-the-consensus position.

Let's see:

There are about 1.7 million peer reviewed papers published every year in about 24,000 journals around the world. So that's 861,000 papers total for the first six months of 2016. That means .0002 of the papers, or .02%, are skeptical of the consensus in that time.

So congratulations! You have just demonstrated that 99.98% of scientists do not dispute the consensus position, which according to your article is:

"It is extremely likely more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

[Stumpy 256]

billvon

>240 papers already in 2016 Now updated for the first 6 months of 2016, a review of
>the literature has already uncovered a list of 240 papers published in peer-reviewed
>scholarly journals that support a skeptical-of-the-consensus position.

Let's see:

There are about 1.7 million peer reviewed papers published every year in about 24,000 journals around the world. So that's 861,000 papers total for the first six months of 2016. That means .0002 of the papers, or .02%, are skeptical of the consensus in that time.

So congratulations! You have just demonstrated that 99.98% of scientists do not dispute the consensus position, which according to your article is:

"It is extremely likely more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Well give him some credit - 97% is probably wrong....

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

You should have been a tobacco company lawyer. Where were you when they needed you?

ahhh
the tobacco defense

I love it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Hey Bill

when you going to post about the fast temp drops being seen these day?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,915]

rushmc

***You should have been a tobacco company lawyer. Where were you when they needed you?

ahhh
the tobacco defense

I love it

Wrong, not defense, offense

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,406]

>when you going to post about the fast temp drops being seen these day?

(Rush, realizing he has just proved the opposite of what he intended, tries desperately to change the subject . . . .)

[SkyDekker 1,129]

billvon

>when you going to post about the fast temp drops being seen these day?

(Rush, realizing he has just proved the opposite of what he intended, tries desperately to change the subject . . . .)

This is so classic Rush. See a headline, forego any thinking or reading, but quickly post. Only to have ass handed....once again.

Amazing how there is absolutely no learning happening whatsoever in this process. We now see this attitude more and more.

It has always been hard to get people to change their opinions or believes. Until relatively recently if a true subject matter expert spoke on the matter, people would listen. Now an expert speaking on a matter is seen as absolute proof that the opposite must be true.

Absolute insanity.

[tkhayes 129]

rushmc

Hey Bill

when you going to post about the fast temp drops being seen these day?

Which is called 'weather' not 'climate'

So I expect he will post about the same time you post your CV/ability to be a climate researcher worthy of listening to.

[brenthutch 384]

97% of scientists determined that the Taung Child was killed by a large cat. 97% of scientists declared Piltdown Man the missing link. 97% of scientists declared nuts to be unhealthy due to their high fat content. 97% of EU scientists claimed that drinking water did not prevent dehydration. 97% of scientists said that the earth was the center of the universe. 97% of scientists stated that white Europeans were a superior race.
So forgive me for not joining in on your groupthink circle jerk.

[StreetScooby 5]

Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/ is a sane voice in this conversation.

This issue has 3 parts:
1) Does CO2 increase the global temperature?
2) Are feedbacks positive or negative, and will it be catastrophic?
3) Is anything being proposed by governments going to make a difference?

The physics of CO2 tending to increase temperature cannot be disputed. The question is what is the magnitude of those changes.

The major issue is whether there are positive or negative feedback that will exacerbate this. The global alarmists claim that the positive feedbacks will drive the temperature up 3+ degC. That is open to debate, and the models and observations are not showing that.

It's clear to any rationale person who has read through the issues that proposals from governments will not have _ANY_ impact what so ever on effects being considered.

Water vapor is the dominant green house gas by far. Warming due to water vapor is about 60 degF, by itself. Our species would not be here if it weren't for green house warming.

People saying that another 2 degF is going to destroy our way of life are less than fully informed, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 18]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807652

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,406]

>97% of scientists determined that the Taung Child was killed by a large cat.
>97% of scientists declared Piltdown Man the missing link. . . .

None of the above is actually true. (Of course, what does that matter when it comes to climate change denial?)

[billvon 2,406]

>People saying that another 2 degF is going to destroy our way of life are less than fully
>informed, IMO.

And people that say that another 2 degrees F will have no possible negative effects are even less informed.

[brenthutch 384]

billvon

>97% of scientists determined that the Taung Child was killed by a large cat.
>97% of scientists declared Piltdown Man the missing link. . . .

None of the above is actually true. (Of course, what does that matter when it comes to climate change denial?)

No, you are right it was closer to 100%

[billvon 2,406]

>No, you are right it was closer to 100%

Also not true. You are, once again, proving my point.

[brenthutch 384]

billvon

>No, you are right it was closer to 100%

Also not true. You are, once again, proving my point.

Source?

"Previously, experts had believed that the child, whose fossil skull was found by Professor Raymond Dart in South Africa's North West province in 1924, had been killed by a leopard or sabre-tooth cat"

http://www.southafrica.info/about/science/taung-skull-130106.htm#.V41pLC33aSM#ixzz4Eo5VAknO

[billvon 2,406]

>Source?

For your claim that 97% of scientists believed that a cat killed the Taung child? Sure.

========================
Lee Berger, senior palaeoanthropologist at Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand: "For eighty years we thought that a mammal, maybe a leopard had killed the little Taung child. What we can now prove beyond reasonable doubt is that this little child, 3-and-half-years-old, living two million years ago, was killed by a large predatory bird of prey."

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/fee52ade219e8ae480d0e13d2713ed47
=========================

So no, 97% of scientists did not believe it was a cat. They didn't know what killed it. They thought it was - perhaps - a mammal. It wasn't until about ten years ago that they determined to a good level of accuracy what killed him.

[The111 0]

StreetScooby

People saying that another 2 degF is going to destroy our way of life are less than fully informed, IMO.

Less than fully informed: using an increment of change as a discussion point, when rate of change is what matters.

If temps go up at the rate of 2F/century (a randomly chosen value for the sake of illustrating something that should be obvious), then you get to enjoy the rest of your life. In a couple millennia (a relatively short time on a planetary scale), no humans will be enjoying any life.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

billvon

>Source?

For your claim that 97% of scientists believed that a cat killed the Taung child? Sure.

========================
Lee Berger, senior palaeoanthropologist at Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand: "For eighty years we thought that a mammal, maybe a leopard had killed the little Taung child. What we can now prove beyond reasonable doubt is that this little child, 3-and-half-years-old, living two million years ago, was killed by a large predatory bird of prey."

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/fee52ade219e8ae480d0e13d2713ed47
=========================

So no, 97% of scientists did not believe it was a cat. They didn't know what killed it. They thought it was - perhaps - a mammal. It wasn't until about ten years ago that they determined to a good level of accuracy what killed him.

They were however in nearly unanimous agreement that it was not a bird of prey. Until they were not.