All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed

[Bergslagstroll]

No they don's and a blog is not a peer reviewed source!

My source linked to peer reviewed studies. Also the evidence for manmade global warming is overwhelming.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

 

[longview]

My source linked to peer reviewed studies. Also the evidence for manmade global warming is overwhelming.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

Yep, and here is the first sentence of you citation.

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

Note that it does not say Human greenhouse gas emissions, but simply "caused by humans"

 

[Lord of Planar]

My source linked to peer reviewed studies. Also the evidence for manmade global warming is overwhelming.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

The Cornell journalist is lying.

The paper they refer to does not claim that 99%+ of the papers say mankind is the primary cause. It only claims 19 out of 3,000 papers, or 0.6% claim that. But if you remove the 2,104 papers with no position, that changes to 2.1% (19 / 896 = 0.0212.) To get that 99+% they lie about what the study says. The study breaks down the endorsement into seven level. They add up the first three categories and get 892 / 896 = 0.9955. That 99.6% only represents the position that there is a human factor to Climate Change.

Here are the seven quantification categories from the paper:



I have shown this lie over and over, so many times over the years, I am surprised you guys are still believing the lies. Read the paper linked in the Cornell story, and see for yourself.

 

[Volunteer]

Note that it does not say Human greenhouse gas emissions, but simply "caused by humans"

Yes, it does. “It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions."

How can you twist the co-author's conclusion when he says "the principle role of greenhouse emissions?"

 

[longview]

Yes, it does. “It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions."

How can you twist the co-author's conclusion when he says "the principle role of greenhouse emissions?"

Yes, it does. “It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions."

How can you twist the co-author's conclusion when he says "the principle role of greenhouse emissions?"

So let me ask a question?
Why did they not include that in the starting statement?

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans

I can tell you because finding papers that agree that Human activity is affecting the climate, is much easier than
finding papers that specify added CO2 as the what is affecting the climate!
By the way I am not twisting the co-authors conclusion, I quoted their opening statement word for word!
By the way someone acknowledging somethings role, is not evidence that their acknowledgement is correct.

 

[Volunteer]

Why did they not include that in the starting statement?

Starting statement?? Read the first half of the first page!

 

[longview]

Starting statement?? Read the first half of the first page!

Face it the criteria was climate change caused by human activity, the additional statement about acknowledging CO2 was an opinion not part of qualifying the results.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Yep, and here is the first sentence of you citation.

Note that it does not say Human greenhouse gas emissions, but simply "caused by humans"

Contrary scientists have claimed climate change is caused by natural causes. While they studies have all been filled with errors and contradicted each other. So the contrary studies have gone from 3 percent to almost none.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

While it have consistently been a scientific consensus for the last decades that global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – Ecological Society of America

esa.org

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

www.ipcc.ch

 

[longview]

Contrary scientists have claimed climate change is caused by natural causes. While they studies have all been filled with errors and contradicted each other. So the contrary studies have gone from 3 percent to almost none.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

While it have consistently been a scientific consensus for the last decades that global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – Ecological Society of America

esa.org

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

www.ipcc.ch

You are arguing a point not in contention!
I have not said the recent (Since 1978) climate change is natural!
It is caused by Human activity, but that activity is not CO2 emissions, but rather
First our emission of actual air pollution, and then our clearing the skies of that air pollution.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Contrary scientists have claimed climate change is caused by natural causes. While they studies have all been filled with errors and contradicted each other. So the contrary studies have gone from 3 percent to almost none.

Nobody is funding the other side. The agenda funnels tons of money into the scam. Any scientist who tries to she the scare is false is driven out of the science community, so most remain silent on the issue.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

That is a lie, but we do have somewhere around half as the total human caused. But only part of the human factor is greenhouse gasses.

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

While it have consistently been a scientific consensus for the last decades that global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2.

Human causes. Not exclusinely greenhouse gasses. Human emissions do not cover land use changes which is a large factoon in measurements.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – Ecological Society of America

esa.org

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

www.ipcc.ch

A blog.

That's your speed instead of an actual paper.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You are arguing a point not in contention!
I have not said the recent (Since 1978) climate change is natural!
It is caused by Human activity, but that activity is not CO2 emissions, but rather
First our emission of actual air pollution, and then our clearing the skies of that air pollution.

As I showed, contrarian scientists have claimed that global warming has natural causes, while they have been proven wrong.

Also human aerosol pollution has had a cooling effect that has masked some of the global warming from CO2 emissions.

“If not for aerosol pollution, Earth would be even warmer than it already is. Aerosol air pollution has made the planet about 0.7° F (0.4 °C) cooler than it otherwise would be, according to the 2021 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For comparison, greenhouse gas emissions have added 2.7°F (1.5°C) of warming.

This makes for an interesting predicament. It might seem that air pollution is oddly helpful to counteract climate change. But that doesn’t mean we need air pollution to keep the world slightly cooler. As people and economies shift to energy forms that emit less particulate pollution, there will be a gradual reduction in air pollution aerosols, which could cause a temporary warming effect. Because these changes will occur gradually over several decades, it’s unlikely to cause much of a temperature rise.
Over the long haul, reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases will more than make up for any temporary warming. Plus, cleaner air will save millions of lives.”

Aerosols: Small Particles with Big Climate Effects - NASA Science

Aerosols are small particles in the air that can either cool or warm the climate, depending on the type and color of the particle.

science.nasa.gov

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Nobody is funding the other side. The agenda funnels tons of money into the scam. Any scientist who tries to she the scare is false is driven out of the science community, so most remain silent on the issue.

That is a lie, but we do have somewhere around half as the total human caused. But only part of the human factor is greenhouse gasses.

Human causes. Not exclusinely greenhouse gasses. Human emissions do not cover land use changes which is a large factoon in measurements.

A blog.

That's your speed instead of an actual paper.

As I showed have contrarian studies been published but they have been filled with errors and contradicted each other. While the IPCC reports have withstand decades of scrutiny. Including from foss fuel companies, fossil fuel dictatorships and their bought politicians.

Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one » Yale Climate Connections

During the latest midterm election cycle, the fossil fuel industry paid at least $359 million for federal campaign donations and lobbying.

yaleclimateconnections.org

10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just One Year

If Wheeler truly cared about transparency, he would petition the Trump administration to change the name of his agency to “Every Polluter’s Ally.”

blog.ucs.org

Bush's sordid Saudi ties set template for Trump – he was just more subtle

The former president has been widely praised for his command of foreign policy. The reality, writes the author of House of Bush, House of Saud, was much more complex – and dark

www.theguardian.com

Report: Jared Kushner’s $2 Billion Saudi Check Appears Even More Comically Corrupt Than Previously Thought

“The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.”

www.vanityfair.com

A luxury jet gift from Qatar. $TRUMP crypto. Foreign real estate deals. A guide to Trump's biggest corruption concerns.

Critics say the president is now openly enriching himself in ways that make the ethical complaints of his first term look quaint in comparison.

www.yahoo.com

 

[longview]

As I showed, contrarian scientists have claimed that global warming has natural causes, while they have been proven wrong.

Also human aerosol pollution has had a cooling effect that has masked some of the global warming from CO2 emissions.

“If not for aerosol pollution, Earth would be even warmer than it already is. Aerosol air pollution has made the planet about 0.7° F (0.4 °C) cooler than it otherwise would be, according to the 2021 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For comparison, greenhouse gas emissions have added 2.7°F (1.5°C) of warming.

This makes for an interesting predicament. It might seem that air pollution is oddly helpful to counteract climate change. But that doesn’t mean we need air pollution to keep the world slightly cooler. As people and economies shift to energy forms that emit less particulate pollution, there will be a gradual reduction in air pollution aerosols, which could cause a temporary warming effect. Because these changes will occur gradually over several decades, it’s unlikely to cause much of a temperature rise.
Over the long haul, reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases will more than make up for any temporary warming. Plus, cleaner air will save millions of lives.”

Aerosols: Small Particles with Big Climate Effects - NASA Science

Aerosols are small particles in the air that can either cool or warm the climate, depending on the type and color of the particle.

science.nasa.gov

You are almost there human caused air pollution masked any warming natural or man made, and removing that pollution revealed the earlier warming in a much shorter time frame.
We only know that since year 2000, it could not have been CO2 causing the warming, because there is no energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

 

[Volunteer]

Nobody is funding the other side. The agenda funnels tons of money into the scam.

Not true. Hundreds of lobbying groups, advertising agencies, and public relations firms have been paid by fossil fuels companies to spin their stories in the media. Here's a list of only a portion of them.

Can you present any list of renewable energy companies doing that???

The F-List 2022: 230+ Ad and PR Companies Working for the Fossil Fuel Industry​

The list below documents relationships between public relations and advertising agencies, and their clients in the fossil fuel industry, since approximately 2015.

Fossil fuel industry clients include the full range of corporations involved in the business of extracting, transporting, refining, and selling fossil fuels, their trade associations, and front groups representing their interests.

These relationships have been documented through industry publications, public disclosures by agencies or their contractors, and verified reporting.

CURRENT AND RECENT FOSSIL FUEL CONTRACTS:​

WPP​

• AKQA​

• Barton Deakin​

• Burson Cohn & Wolfe​

• Cannings Purple​

• Geometry Global​

• Grey​

• Grey (Grey Argentina)​

• Grey (Grey Columbia)​

• Hawker Britton​

• Hill+Knowlton​

• Landor​

• Mediacom​

• Mindshare​

• Mirum​

• Mutato​

• Ogilvy (The Brand Union)​

• Ogilvy (Ogilvy Brasil)​

• Ogilvy​

• OPR (Oglivy PR)​

• Rediffusion Y&R​

• Scholz & Friends​

• Super Union​

• The Brand Agency​

• VMLY&R​

• VMLY&R (Young & Rubicam Brazil)​

• Wavemaker​

• Wunderman Thompson​

OMNICOM​

• adam&eveDDB​

• BBDO​

• BBDO (Sancho BBDO)​

• BBDO (R K Swamy BBDO)​

• DDB Canada​

• DDC Advocacy​

• FleishmanHillard​

• GRACosway​

• GSD&M​

• Ketchum​

• Marketforce (Clemenger BBDO/Omnicom)​

• Marketforce / Marketforce North​

• OMD​

• PHD​

• Porter Novelli​

• RAPP​

• TBWA\Singapore​

• Tribal Worldwide​

DENTSU​

• Carat​

• Dentsu Creative​

• iProspect​

INTERPUBLIC​

• Campbell Ewald​

• Carmichael Lynch​

• FCB (Draftcb Ulka)​

• FCB​

• HUGE​

• IPG Mediabrands (Ensemble Worldwide)​

• IPG Mediabrands (Well 7)​

• Jack Morton​

• McCann Worldgroup​

• McCann Worldgroup (Mercado McCann)​

• McCann Worldgroup (McCann Santiago)​

• McCann Worldgroup (WMcCann)​

• McCann Worldgroup (MRM Worldwide)​

• McCann Worldgroup (FP7)​

• McCann Worldgroup Spain​

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not true. Hundreds of lobbying groups, advertising agencies, and public relations firms have been paid by fossil fuels companies to spin their stories in the media. Here's a list of only a portion of them.

They can spend their money however they like. Maybe you are in favor of banning the first amendment so no businesses can not advertise their product.

Can you present any list of renewable energy companies doing that???

The government and atavist do that fro them.

 

[CLAX1911]

The evidence for global warming caused by human emissions of CO2 is overwhelming.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

Sure but the amount of warming actually caused by human emissions is debatable.

You do understand the planet has been warming for 25,000 years right?

The magnitude of warming in those 25,000 years is so enormous that it dwarfs entirely the amount of warming in recent times let alone what fraction of it is caused by man.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You are almost there human caused air pollution masked any warming natural or man made, and removing that pollution revealed the earlier warming in a much shorter time frame.
We only know that since year 2000, it could not have been CO2 causing the warming, because there is no energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.

As I showed, the claims that the warming has natural causes have been disproven and there are also no alternative manmade causes that can explain the present warning.

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Sure but the amount of warming actually caused by human emissions is debatable.

You do understand the planet has been warming for 25,000 years right?

The magnitude of warming in those 25,000 years is so enormous that it dwarfs entirely the amount of warming in recent times let alone what fraction of it is caused by man.

The evidence for manmade global warming from CO2 emissions is overwhelming.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

The reason Republican politicians oppose action on climate change is all the money thet get from fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships. While also decades of propaganda from fossil fuel companies.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

 

[CLAX1911]

The evidence for manmade global warming from CO2 emissions is overwhelming.

Sure but again the amount of warming that is caused by man compared to the amount of warming that would have happened anyway is debatable.

The planet was already warming before any industrialization in fact it warmed by like 10 degrees Celsius in 25,000 years

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

The reason Republican politicians oppose action on climate change is all the money thet get from fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships. While also decades of propaganda from fossil fuel companies.

The fossil fuel industry gave us the single greatest innovation to reduce CO2 in human history. Fracking. Tracking made natural gas affordable to the point where we started burning it in our power plants and reduced our CO2 emissions from power production by 50%. If you multiply all the windmills and solar power plants by 10 it wouldn't do that

All of the windmills all of the solar power plants all of the electric cars combined is a drop in the bucket compared to it.

So no you are wrong about this, probably because you're listening to propaganda that is funded by the people who are desperately trying to take down the fossil fuel industry. Probably because they don't contribute to their campaigns quite as much.

Sensible people Republican or otherwise condemn government control over this they will increase emissions 50 fault because the government did terrible at everything. And most of the people in government are profound idiots. This scum shouldn't be making policy on clean energy if we were 3 years away from global catastrophe.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

State funded propaganda from a state interested in controlling its people no thanks.

The fossil fuel industry did more good for the environment over a 30-year period than all the windmills and solar power plants on the planet combined.

 

[longview]

As I showed, the claims that the warming has natural causes have been disproven and there are also no alternative manmade causes that can explain the present warning.

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

Where did I say the recent warming (since 1978) was natural? You are arguing a point not in contention!
Also global dimming and brightening more than account for the observed warming, because the measured decrease in ASR, (~9W m-2) and measured increase in ASR(~6.6W m-2), are more than double the energy imbalance predicted for all the added greenhouse gases since 1750!

 

[longview]

Sure but again the amount of warming that is caused by man compared to the amount of warming that would have happened anyway is debatable.

The planet was already warming before any industrialization in fact it warmed by like 10 degrees Celsius in 25,000 years

The fossil fuel industry gave us the single greatest innovation to reduce CO2 in human history. Fracking. Tracking made natural gas affordable to the point where we started burning it in our power plants and reduced our CO2 emissions from power production by 50%. If you multiply all the windmills and solar power plants by 10 it wouldn't do that

All of the windmills all of the solar power plants all of the electric cars combined is a drop in the bucket compared to it.

So no you are wrong about this, probably because you're listening to propaganda that is funded by the people who are desperately trying to take down the fossil fuel industry. Probably because they don't contribute to their campaigns quite as much.

Sensible people Republican or otherwise condemn government control over this they will increase emissions 50 fault because the government did terrible at everything. And most of the people in government are profound idiots. This scum shouldn't be making policy on clean energy if we were 3 years away from global catastrophe.

State funded propaganda from a state interested in controlling its people no thanks.

The fossil fuel industry did more good for the environment over a 30-year period than all the windmills and solar power plants on the planet combined.

Some simple math would show that replacing all the coal power plants with combined cycle natural gas power plants would achieve net zero, all by itself!

 

[Lord of Planar]

As I showed, the claims that the warming has natural causes have been disproven and there are also no alternative manmade causes that can explain the present warning.

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

I can find flaws in the other papers as well. Should I expose them and say they are no good? The paper saying these 38 papers are bad papers appears to be a scientist that is attacking back for his work shown to be wrong. It is very difficult to find which papers he speaks of. He simply has many papers in the references without distinguish the 38 he says are bad. But he does direct us to a few. The first one I looked at is:

Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming

Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming

Errors in applying regression models and wavelet filters used to analyze geophysical signals are discussed: (1) multidecadal natural oscillations (e.g. the quasi 60-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)) need to be...

arxiv.org

These papers are simply targeted because they weaken the cult's position. They even say as much in different words. It claims only a sea level rise of 350 for the future alarmist assessment of 1,130 and higher.

If this 2015 paper you linked was deemed accurate, those 38 papers would have been removed. Yet they are still active.

Now if you wish to find a paper they claim is inaccurate, quote the part that is wrong and link the paper, I will be more than willing to debate the actual paper with you.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

This story, which is a college newspaper type and not a peer reviewed paper lised in the first paragraph:

​

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.​

This is a flat out lie. It is true that they have cone to the 99.6 and higher numbers dependent of the study, agree that AGW is real, that number is very small when you refine it to claim we are causing "most" of the warming.

This has been discussed, with proof shown to you over and over. Why do you still choose activist lies over what is clearly shown in the peer reviewed papers?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The evidence for manmade global warming from CO2 emissions is overwhelming.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

The reason Republican politicians oppose action on climate change is all the money thet get from fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships. While also decades of propaganda from fossil fuel companies.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

More propaganda.

 

[CLAX1911]

As I showed, the claims that the warming has natural causes have been disproven

Absolutely 100% false. Any source that says that between the ice age and now there was no naturally occurring warming is debunked with the people administering it are the world's biggest quacks and everything they say is suspect.

There is absolutely natural warming.

and there are also no alternative manmade causes that can explain the present warning.

The planet has been warming for 25,000 years. There's no way possible that that's cause strictly by man and if it is it's a good thing.

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

qz.com

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I can find flaws in the other papers as well. Should I expose them and say they are no good? The paper saying these 38 papers are bad papers appears to be a scientist that is attacking back for his work shown to be wrong. It is very difficult to find which papers he speaks of. He simply has many papers in the references without distinguish the 38 he says are bad. But he does direct us to a few. The first one I looked at is:

Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming

View attachment 67570507

Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming

Errors in applying regression models and wavelet filters used to analyze geophysical signals are discussed: (1) multidecadal natural oscillations (e.g. the quasi 60-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)) need to be...

arxiv.org

These papers are simply targeted because they weaken the cult's position. They even say as much in different words. It claims only a sea level rise of 350 for the future alarmist assessment of 1,130 and higher.

If this 2015 paper you linked was deemed accurate, those 38 papers would have been removed. Yet they are still active.

Now if you wish to find a paper they claim is inaccurate, quote the part that is wrong and link the paper, I will be more than willing to debate the actual paper with you.

This story, which is a college newspaper type and not a peer reviewed paper lised in the first paragraph:

​

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.​

This is a flat out lie. It is true that they have cone to the 99.6 and higher numbers dependent of the study, agree that AGW is real, that number is very small when you refine it to claim we are causing "most" of the warming.

This has been discussed, with proof shown to you over and over. Why do you still choose activist lies over what is clearly shown in the peer reviewed papers?

Scientists have had every opportunity to review and object to the first study and look into contrarian studies. With the result that over 99.9 studies now acknowledge manmade global warming. While fossil fuel companies have for many decades known about the need to reduce CO2 emissions.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199570023/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-global-warming-oil-gas