[size=8]32.6 % expressed an endorsing position on AGW [/size]of the 11944 abstracts
thats the highest you can go any way you read it

97.1% who expressed a position endorsed the 'consensus'

edit
they've counted endorses + rejecters + unsure in those taking a position

which is 33.6%

they've then gone 32.6 / 33.6 to get 97% of all scientists endorse

which is a falsehood as [size=8]66.4% [/size]TOOK NO POSITION


Edited by ricecrackers: 5/8/2014 12:36:00 PM

A + B doesn't equal AB peanut.

You're (they're) selectively (some would say "cherry-picking" ) using the data to arrive at that number.



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 5/8/2014 12:14:52 PM

the only deniers here are the morons who still deny the truth and believe in this fantasy

dodgy mathematics?
the only dodgy mathematics is the claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree that man is influencing the climate.

i find it difficult to believe you're an engineer of any sort going by the evidence exhibited on this forum

er no, the majority take no position in that they see no evidence either way that man is influencing the climate as there is no evidence

you call those that take a position and say no are deniers, this is a political term, not a scientific one

but what would you know, you pull beers for a living

The 31.7% figure Crackers is trying to use to prove his point is arrived at by using dodgy mathematics.

There is a long discussion and a step by step methodology in the comments below one of the articles linked on the previous page specifically rebutting this.

Not that Crackers will care because only his evidence is evidence. Everyone else's evidence s conjecture.

If only.

What ricecrackers fails to acknowledge or mention is that the very same tables from which he drew his maths to put global warming 'consensus' at 31.7% means that scientists who are deniers are an entirely insignificant figure.

But hey, why look at things logically when you can cherry pick around your own confirmation bias?

err no, you are and you've proven it
i've deconstructed your data and destroyed it.

you've taken selective subjective quotes. you cant challenge the data, you cant challenge the maths because maths is truth.

now you're just being what you say i am, there's nothing more to say

Edited by ricecrackers: 4/8/2014 11:53:37 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus

excerpt:

Monckton's blog post and paper tried to deny the consensus by ignoring 98% of the papers that endorse it. He compared only papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming to the full sample of all peer-reviewed papers that mention the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.”

[size=6]By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.”[/size] The same is true of human-caused global warming. That Bast and Spencer refer to Monckton and Legates’ fundamentally wrong paper in an obscure off-topic journal as “more reliable research” reveals their bias in only considering denial “reliable.”

http://skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html

-----------------------------------------------8<------------------------------------------

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result.

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

---------------------------------------------------8<-------------------------------------------------

There's far more if you'd like to educate yourself.

Like this article rubbishing Monkton's "demolition" of the 97% "fallacy".

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/16/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-again-not-debunked/

You are such a cockhead it defies belief.

From the website you linked. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

-----------------------------------------------------8<---------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature [size=6]provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion[/size]. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. [size=6]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.[/size]

-----------------------------------------------8<------------------------------------

Thank you Crackers for linking an article specifically rebutting your position.

Champion effort.

Sheesh ricey is editing faster than the Chinese Press :lol:

-PB

do them yourself. the data is in front of you
oh thats right, you cant

Why should I believe your calculations?

theyre the figures and the specific study all the alarmists cite (oft incorrectly)
i've broken them down and destroyed their argument

there's no coming back from this. i dont expect to see RedKat return

Edited by ricecrackers: 4/8/2014 05:33:09 PM

So I'm just meant to sit here and blindly believe the "correct" figures you are telling me?

this is from John Cook's paper. I've added my comments in red to explain it better.



in short, its really 31.7% not 97%

then in phase two they attempted to get a direct consensus of authors commenting on their own papers and only 4% responded

AGW 'Consensus' destroyed

Edited by ricecrackers: 4/8/2014 05:18:24 PM

i'll show you why, Redkat, Manrub and a few others constantly cite 97% consensus as their evidence
even afrodope supported them when i questioned their claims

furthermore Redkat also likes to cite John Cook's website skeptical science

lets a take a closer look at how 97% consensus was derived...

Edited by ricecrackers: 4/8/2014 05:10:58 PM

I think Ricey has lost it, even more then usual

Ricey, why did you quote those last 2? they go against everything you stand for

i guess not, i guess you just take it in good faith

AGW has been destroyed and the stupids here are having difficulty dealing with that reality

Edited by ricecrackers: 4/8/2014 03:01:40 PM

Concensus is that you're an idiot. It comes from you making stupid posts.

so whats this consensus I keep hearing about then? can someone tell me where that comes from?