Those who make their living by pushing a political position regarding ‘climate change’ are at it again
Scientists Just Confirmed The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change
Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, a research team confirmed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.
The study, published Tuesday, brought together 16 scientists, including seven authors of consensus studies that documented similar conclusions over the years despite varying research approaches. While reaching this so-called “consensus on consensus,†authors concluded that scientific agreement on human-caused climate change is “robust†with a range of 90 to 100 percent, depending on the question and methodology.
“It’s important to have [it] on the record,†said Will Cantrell, professor of physics at Michigan Technological University, who was not part of the study. “I don’t think any one study is going to change a lot of people’s minds, but it’s better to have the information than to not have it,†he told ThinkProgress.
Let’s start off by noting that consensus is not science. Secondly, many of the papers mentioned later in the missive have been proven to be frauds, such as the Cook 97% paper….say, isn’t it interesting that they all seem to arrive at the same number? Never 95, 96, 98. Always 97…..which has been shown to be even more of a fraud.
Techniques used to assess expert views on human-caused climate change include analyzing peer-reviewed climate papers, surveying members of the relevant scientific community, compiling public statements by scientists, and mathematically analyzing citation patterns. For this paper, authors used a statistical technique called meta-analysis, which is a way to combine the findings from independent studies, and essentially did a meta-study of meta-studies.
In other words, they simply looked at papers by those with similar beliefs (and monetary interests) and put them together. It is interesting that the Warmists try this consensus schtick constantly, rather than providing rock solid scientific proof. Correlation is not causation.
That’s from Watts Up With That?, regarding a different consensus chart.
Almost all climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere.
Studies show it’s somewhere between 90% and 100%.
So what’s your beef? Just sounds like a fact you need to live with and move on to your next fine whine.
What would you consider “rock solid… proof”?
So now we have a consensus on the consensus. The so-called 90 something consensus has been shown to be a fraud.
If the science was solid, the global warming cultists wouldn’t need to use “polls” to convince people.
Might have helped if any of the doom and gloom predictions of the last 20 years had come true.
It’s about greed and control, hallmarks of the left.
They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc.
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/15/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-mocks-97-consensus-it-is-propaganda/#ixzz45oWs4ARj
Jeffrey wrote:
No one cares what you believe, as long as you don’t try to use the force of law to get other people to comply with your beliefs and seize their money or cost them their jobs due to your beliefs.
And that’s pretty much what you would say were I to be posting evidence that Pope Paul VI was absolutely right in Humanae Vitae, and therefore we should ban contraception, or that Catholicism is clearly the Church established by Jesus, and therefore you should not only be compelled to attend Mass but be taxed to support the church.
If you want to cut back on your carbon footprint or drive a Nissan Leaf, I don’t care: that’s your life, and none of my business. It’s when you want to force me to cut back on my carbon footprint or drive a Chevy Dolt that you are going to encounter pushback.
Mr. M typed:
That’s just not true. I’m certain some well-compensated Deni-o-blogger claims it’s a fraud, but that doesn’t make it so.
He furthers comments about the science, LOL. Please tell us the most compelling bit of “science” that makes you a Denier, LOL.
Dana says he will refuse to obey the laws of the land. OK. In your case,
seizingtaxing you is just taxpayers getting some of their money back.Dana: Do you consider any taxation to be legitimate?
I apologize for that stupid question. Of course you consider the taxes that pay your salary to be legitimate.
“Almost all climate scientists agree….” Which means nothing. They agree, but somehow the data doesn’t agree. Hmmm. The “we have more guys on our side so we win argument.” How very scientific.
Sorry, Jeffty, (look it up): The 97% number is, and always has been BS.
You can look it up, but the gist of the original “study” went like this:
1) Clowns with an agenda reviewed a boatload of climate papers written by others.
2) A small percentage of those papers had an opinion on alleged AGW.
3) Of those papers, and only those papers, 97% said “global warming” (as is was quaintly known then) was significantly affected by humans.
4) So a high percentage of a small number of scientists say AGW is real. not exactly the same thing as what the warmists would have us believe.
So sorry to be the one to tell you. You were already informed about the Easter bunny, right?