Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: markyugen The 97% figure comes from "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals," according to NASA's website. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ The latest comes from April, 2016. Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.” The "multiple studies" they list are - Cook. Cartoonist. Orestes - Economist I've covered these in exhausting detail, many times. Use the search button, search on my name with keyword orestes - and you will find a variety of papers, as well as posts that show orestes study actually showed 3% agreed with AGW. Out of 11000 papers or so - she threw out all but a couple of hundred, and rated those. So out of 11000 papers, of the paper that expressed an opinion, 97 % of those.. like 65, supported AGW. Its complete falsification covered over by a supine press. The Keanne and Martinez "study" can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf asked two questions. Note that these were conducted via the web with no screening or controls. In other words, its about as accurate as going to the local bus stop, walking into the mens room, and asking people if they believe in global warming. 1. When compared with pre- 1800s lev-els, do you think that mean global tem-peratures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a sig-nificant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Note also that neither of these statement actually has anything to do with the IPCC theory of global warming; itself watered down it reads that humans are responsible for a majority of observed warming via CO2 emissions. But that bit of sleight of hand wasn't enough, oh no. Out of 3146 people - they "manipulated the data" to get down to a sample size of 79 "experts". 97% of these self reported experts - supported global warming. Do I really have to point out the numerous methodology flaws in this? For example, by choosing whom to throw out - they can end up with any final number they want. 100 gave them 55% approval. Oops - cut the sample size. This is why double blind studies are the gold standards. The Final Study, by Anderegg, considers the universe of people that signed the ACC-6. Oh boy. So they polled people that signed on to a pro-AGW statement -to find out they were 97% in favor of AGW. Wow .. theres a surprise. And to top it off - they distilled it further by only taking the people who had published the most papers. Considering that AGW people have been caught refusing the publication of anti-AGW papers, and considering the political climate - (La times - won't publish Anti AGW articles. Nor Huff poo. Bill Nye wants to fine them; Democrat AG's are criminially investigating). This isn't science. Its outright fraud.
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 5/12/2016 8:47:54 PM >
|