Why “97% consensus on climate change” claims are wrong

[vegas giants]

If ur an AGW advocate, then please post here what the temperature of the globe is now and what was it over history. Understand that posting graphs of "anomalies" and "deviations" are not temperatures.

My guess is you can't do it. That's not a problem because I can't either, but I'm not advocating AGW.

You didn't answer my question

 

[vegas giants]

How would you know? You post blogs and media articles. You don't read the peer reviewed papers, just what others say and lie about them.

Actually I read it all. You just believe in a international conspiracy

 

[PoS]

Climatology.

That's gonna be the degree any climate expert has.

That's what makes them an expert.

Unless you're @Lord of Planar , then it's communications, lol.

Like I said, name a scientist that believes in your AGW theory, and let's see what his/her qualifications is.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And scientists don't know that? But you do?

They know it.

How would you know anyway? You recite pundits. Not scientists.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually I read it all. You just believe in a international conspiracy

Not true. I don't believe is conspiracies.

Your analytical skills are really poor if you read the papers scientists write, and don't see how the pundits lie.

 

[neil]

Like I said, name a scientist that believes in your AGW theory, and let's see what his/her qualifications is.

Wow! I looked at the most prominent scientists who endorse AGW theory that I know of & none of them have degrees in climatology:

Michael E. Mann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989)
MS physics (1991)
MPhil physics (1991)
MPhil geology (1993)
PhD geology & geophysics (1998)

James Hansen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963
M.S. in Astronomy in 1965
Ph.D. in Physics in 1967

John Cook: https://skepticalscience.com/docs/John_Cook_CV.pdf
2012-2016 Doctorate of Philosophy
School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
1989-1992 B.Sc. First Class Honours, Physics.
University of Queensland, Australia.

Bill Nye (actually an engineer): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
BS Mechanical Engineering (1977)

This human-caused global warming alarmism is starting to look more & more like Joe Pesci's character's description of the DA's case in the movie My Cousin Vinny (a playing cards bricks illusion):

 

[vegas giants]

Not true. I don't believe is conspiracies.

Your analytical skills are really poor if you read the papers scientists write, and don't see how the pundits lie.

Then you must explain why scientists all over the world are getting it wrong but you are getting it right

 

[vegas giants]

They know it.

How would you know anyway? You recite pundits. Not scientists.

Nope. The scientists are clear and that is who i cite

 

[neil]

Then you must explain why scientists all over the world are getting it wrong but you are getting it right

Is anyone asserting that scientists all over the world are getting anything wrong? Please elaborate.

 

[Somerville]

Other responses have already covered the falsity of the claims made by the deniers but I thought I would add a bit more to the 'discussion'

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change​

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.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

Here's the part that should cause some people to rethink their beliefs - beliefs unsupported by the science
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only found four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.

Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.

 

[Somerville]

Is anyone asserting that scientists all over the world are getting anything wrong? Please elaborate.

What is the title of the thread?

 

[vegas giants]

Is anyone asserting that scientists all over the world are getting anything wrong? Please elaborate.

Great. So you believe in the consensus. Me too

 

[Lord of Planar]

Then you must explain why scientists all over the world are getting it wrong but you are getting it right

I did explain it. I'm sorry you don't comprehend.

The scientists are not getting it wrong! At least not by the variables they are using.

The scientists temper their words trying to be as accurate as they can be. They might speak of the model outcomes, but never claim the output being what will happen. That's where the pundits lie. They make claims that are not treated as fact by the science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nope. The scientists are clear and that is who i cite

Bullshit. Unless it is a small number that can be counted on one hand like Schidt.

You cite what some reporter claimed, which is a lie of what the scientists say.

Care to prove me wrong?

 

[neil]

What is the title of the thread?

That's an easy question to answer! It's this:

Why “97% consensus on climate change” claims are wrong​

Now, answer this question (this can't be difficult for anyone to answer): why do you ask?

 

[neil]

Great. So you believe in the consensus. Me too

Instead of answering the question, you try to make it about me, but you fail; so - now what's your next move?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Wow

Hard to believe there are still deniers when the evidence is all around the world

Deniers are enabled and paid by the fossil fuel industry. That's a rather large force to recon with. They don't want to lose their bread and butter. So deny, deny deny.

 

[vegas giants]

Bullshit. Unless it is a small number that can be counted on one hand like Schidt.

You cite what some reporter claimed, which is a lie of what the scientists say.

Care to prove me wrong?

So you believe the leaders of almost 200 scientific agencies are part of a conspiracy against the views of their members?

 

[vegas giants]

Instead of answering the question, you try to make it about me, but you fail; so - now what's your next move?

Yes you are asserting scientists are getting it wrong or are part of a international conspiracy

 

[Lord of Planar]

Deniers are enabled and paid by the fossil fuel industry. That's a rather large force to recon with. They don't want to lose their bread and butter. So deny, deny deny.

And people like you who use logical fallacies, should be treated as not knowing enough to debate against, since people like you will deny the sciences shown.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you believe the leaders of almost 200 scientific agencies are part of a conspiracy against the views of their members?

Conspiracy?

No.

Doing what they think is in their best interest? Yes.

 

[neil]

Yes you are asserting scientists are getting it wrong or are part of a international conspiracy

Oops! Illegal move. You have me confused with someone else (are you ok?); I'm neither asserting scientists are getting it wrong nor making any sort of assertion (national or international) about a conspiracy.

 

[vegas giants]

Oops! Illegal move. You have me confused with someone else (are you ok?); I'm neither asserting scientists are getting it wrong nor making any sort of assertion (national or international) about a conspiracy.

Then you accept the consensus. Welcome aboard

 

[vegas giants]

Conspiracy?

No.

Doing what they think is in their best interest? Yes.

So they are all lying? Is that your point? And all the scientists they represent are helpless to do anything about it?

 

[neil]

Then you accept the consensus. Welcome aboard

You're trying to make it about me again, and you have failed again. Do you play with a full deck?