Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2013, 09:45 AM
 
4,739 posts, read 4,414,295 times
Reputation: 2485

Advertisements

45% of US believe that the Humans are less than 10,000 years old. If they believe that $#!t than what makes you think they can grasp something as complicated as global warming?

Let the unwashed masses believe what they want. . .

 
Old 05-20-2013, 09:48 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,903,529 times
Reputation: 2618
Here is a lot on Cook before, during, and after his paper. It also includes the behavior of him and his crew editing comments from climate researchers like Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and others to make themselves look better after the fact as well as crossing out responses, etc... you know... your typical activist approach to information you dislike. Seriously, they are A grade at political activists, nothing more.


Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse AGW

Is John Cook planning to use systematically biased “correct” survey answers to make unbiased skeptics look biased?


John Cook’s new survey – lots of questions, no answers



Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook – making things up



Friday Funny – John Cook’s withdrawal symptoms


Yet another survey conducted by John Cook of Skeptical Science ? Watch what happens to requests for the questions


Skeptical Science conspiracy theorist John Cook runs another survey trying to prove that false “97% of climate scientists believe in global warming” meme



Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself


Monday Mirthiness – John’s cooked up Skeptical Science survey

Some thoughts on the recent Lewandowsky-Cook conspiracy theory


The Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link


Over-cooked or well done?

The Worst “Cook”book Interview Ever?

The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions

Skeptical Science kidz channel Inigo Montoya in new ‘consensus’ paper


Lewandowsky et al 2013: surveying Peter to report on Paul



Nuccitelli gets a bruising by the factual hand of Monckton


The mental effect of the ’97% consensus’ myth spans politics

Stephan Lewandowsky ‘flees’ Australia in wake of investigations


Second Lewandowsky conspiracy theory paper delinked from journal


Lucia drops some reality on the Gorebots – Update: The astroturfing is from Skeptical Science

More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team

On “Skepticalscience” – Rewriting History

A modest proposal to Skeptical Science

And the list goes... on and on and on.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 09:52 AM
 
4,739 posts, read 4,414,295 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
The premise of the thread is 97% of the papers on climate change support AGW which is false.


"[one study] surveyed about 1,000 active climate scientists, finding that 97 percent of them accepted the evidence for the consensus position that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last century."

The survey of 12,000 "papers" (all of them, read source for details on survey. .but it was all peer reviewed):

"So of those that expressed a position, 97.2 percent endorsed the consensus and 2.8 percent rejected it according to the authors of those papers."'


So It seems 97% is pretty much on target, of those who expressed an opinion. Not all papers expressed any opinion (hence your confusion).



Survey of 12,000 studies finds strong agreement on climate change | Ars Technica
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:13 AM
 
29,935 posts, read 18,491,274 times
Reputation: 20685
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Don, from the study.....

Oh well, yet another failure of journalist to understand what they are reading and someone like yourself failing to research what they citing.

This is what liberals, with no scientific background in science at all, do not understand.

There is NO STUDY CONFIRMING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING- NOT ONE.

Science is not a "show of hands" about opinons. Science is the careful statistical evaluation of hard data with appropriate methods and conclusions.

The OP obviously has no scientific background, and thus does not understand the difference between real science and junk science and does not realize that an opinion poll does not constitute fact.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:19 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,788,138 times
Reputation: 17862
The issue is not with the study ***** at least as far as the what this topic is but the OP's and the journalists misuse of numbers.

The title used by the OP:

Quote:
why do 97% of scientific studies agree that current climate change is manmade?
And the title of the article:

Quote:
97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?

Both of those statements are false, there isn;t even a mention in the first article that it's 97% of 32%...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
"[one study] surveyed about 1,000 active climate scientists, finding that 97 percent of them accepted the evidence for the consensus position that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last century."
They are citing the Anderegg study, Anderegg was an undergraduate student and an environmentalist at least when it was published. His professor also cited as an author in the study has long been a AGW proponent. That aside it's similar to this study where they compiled articles , they did this using Google docs.... It's kind of funny they are citing it because while similar that study is actually contradictory to this one citing the same 97% without the "takes no position" percentage .
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:51 AM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,188,880 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
The premise of the thread is 97% of the papers on climate change support AGW which is false.
I created the thread and you are telling me what the premise of my thread is???? You should read the original post before posting any ideas. I'll make it easy for you and re post the original post

Illuminati, Obama, Communist conspiracy, paid off?

Why isn't there as much consensus in the non scientific community, what is with the discrepancy?

Is it that non scientists are smarter than scientists?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 11:45 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,788,138 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
I created the thread and you are telling me what the premise of my thread is????
The title of your thread is, " Get your tin toil hat on, why do 97% of scientific studies agree that current climate change is manmade?". Seems he hit the nail on the head to me.... oh I get it. You now know that is a false statement becsue you got suckered in by some some journalist and now you want to change it?

Quote:
Why isn't there as much consensus in the non scientific community, what is with the discrepancy?
That assumes there is a discrepancy, have you looked at any of the links Nomader posted?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:01 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,188,880 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
The title of your thread is, " Get your tin toil hat on, why do 97% of scientific studies agree that current climate change is manmade?". Seems he hit the nail on the head to me.... oh I get it. You now know that is a false statement becsue you got suckered in by some some journalist and now you want to change it?

That assumes there is a discrepancy, have you looked at any of the links Nomader posted?
The thread is more than just the title.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,495 posts, read 36,980,817 times
Reputation: 13965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Here is a lot on Cook before, during, and after his paper. It also includes the behavior of him and his crew editing comments from climate researchers like Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and others to make themselves look better after the fact as well as crossing out responses, etc... you know... your typical activist approach to information you dislike. Seriously, they are A grade at political activists, nothing more.


Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse AGW

Is John Cook planning to use systematically biased “correct” survey answers to make unbiased skeptics look biased?


John Cook’s new survey – lots of questions, no answers



Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook – making things up



Friday Funny – John Cook’s withdrawal symptoms


Yet another survey conducted by John Cook of Skeptical Science ? Watch what happens to requests for the questions


Skeptical Science conspiracy theorist John Cook runs another survey trying to prove that false “97% of climate scientists believe in global warming” meme



Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself


Monday Mirthiness – John’s cooked up Skeptical Science survey

Some thoughts on the recent Lewandowsky-Cook conspiracy theory


The Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link


Over-cooked or well done?

The Worst “Cook”book Interview Ever?

The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions

Skeptical Science kidz channel Inigo Montoya in new ‘consensus’ paper


Lewandowsky et al 2013: surveying Peter to report on Paul



Nuccitelli gets a bruising by the factual hand of Monckton


The mental effect of the ’97% consensus’ myth spans politics

Stephan Lewandowsky ‘flees’ Australia in wake of investigations


Second Lewandowsky conspiracy theory paper delinked from journal


Lucia drops some reality on the Gorebots – Update: The astroturfing is from Skeptical Science

More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team

On “Skepticalscience” – Rewriting History

A modest proposal to Skeptical Science

And the list goes... on and on and on.
Your list is cooked by Anthony Watts, your biased big oil god. It is monumental BS, and not worth reading.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy"...........David Suzuki recommends Skeptical Science for accurate science on the topic of climate change......There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts" Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21/...mation-on-pbs/

Last edited by sanspeur; 05-20-2013 at 12:24 PM..
 
Old 05-20-2013, 12:13 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,788,138 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy"...........David Suzuki recommends Skeptical Science for accurate science on the topic of climate change......There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts" Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you see the irony here? Isn't it sticking out like sore thumb?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top