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

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

Why should I believe your calculations?

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

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

-PB

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.

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/

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.”

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

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?

If only.

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.

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

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

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

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

[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

phase 2 is only a sample size of [size=8]4% of the original authors[/size] and we dont know which authors they are and how they were selected

this is what was covered up by UQ

Obviously comprehension is not your strong suit.

obviously its not yours since you cannot explain where my figures are wrong
you seem to be living in perennial denial of the truth which is ironic given that is what you accuse others of



Edited by ricecrackers: 5/8/2014 01:51:23 PM

Ok, so even if 32.6% of scientists state that global warming does exist, and 66.4% of scientists sit on the fence holding no position, that means that this is all just a gigantic straw man hiding the fact that you believe there's no such thing as Global Warming and just ONE PERCENTILE of scientists in the survey agree with you.

So that's 32.6 times more people disagree with you than agree.

But obviously they're wrong. Because you're the world's greatest know-it-all.

its not 32.6% of scientists
its 32.6% of papers on the subject of AGW say man is influencing the climate

that by my reckoning is "A MINORITY" even by those with a vested interest in the topic

the second survey was taken from a small selection of authors of some of those papers

so your entire consensus fantasy is a myth

The 97% has been confirmed by other studies. Do some reading and try again.

It's all there on the previous page.

no it hasnt. you're just lying now.

Edited by ricecrackers: 5/8/2014 04:13:30 PM

32.6 times less of a minority than those saying it doesn't exist.

67.4% dont agree with them

97.3% of rational human beings agree that anyone arguing a point with ricecrackers is a fucking retard.

No. 1% don't agree with them. 67.4% have no opinion. You said so yourself.

erm no, agreeing would put them in the 32.6%

67.4% are not agreeing with them

1% are taking a different position