Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:


Only according to you.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:


You still haven't read Hausfather's 2022 paper have you? What a denier you are.

.Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:


Talk about return to vomit... You can't even bring yourself to read Hausfather's paper from 2022.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:


So give us this number of thousands of climate scientists who believe.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:


I showed what they actually said not what you thought they said.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:26pm:


You didn't read what it said , did you? The number of papers that said that AGW was more than +50%. and they showed the 65 papers. Those 65 papers represent 0.5% of the 11,944 papers they reviewed.

As to the rest that supported AGW go back to the skepsci reference and change the Endorsment level too 2 and then 3. and search Abstracts.
Level 2 - Explicitly endorses but does not quantify - 934 results.

Level 3 - Implicitly endorses AGW - 2934.

That of corse the Imlicit is actually implied.

So 934 out of 11944 is 7.8%

2934 out of 119444 is 24.5 %

And all of that does not add up to 97%. As Cook et al themselves say "32.6% endorsed AGW"


As to the actual paper -

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdfLinus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 11:58pm:


As I just showed, no it doesn't. All of the papers have flaws, you just want to believe. And nothing will convince you otherwise. So I am not going down to your level. Bye.

1,389,499 views  Sep 1, 2023 

Climate change is happening, but has it ever happened before?

Jasin wrote on Sep 7^th, 2023 at 10:16pm:


The weather you mean?

1.Climate science is established. Rising CO2 is driving climate change.    That rise stems by and large from human activity.

2.There's no controversy amongst the top tier climate scientists, that is, as you ascend the ladder of expertise there's a greater consensus. See the video I posted on the Queensland University study that confirms this. Here it is again:




3. The pseudo-controversy generated comes from the ignorant, vested interests in fossil fuels, shill scientists or scientists that aren't climate scientists, and crackpots like Lee.

4. Climate models are excellent and improving.  See here:




Pack it in  Lee and same goes to all you other climate science deniers. You don't know what you're talking about. You can cherry pick, focus on minutiae, misinterpret climate scientists and their papers, marshal crackpots and shills etc etc but all your bullshit doesn't change the truth.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 2:09pm:


Crackpot Lee strikes again with telltale misrepresentation.


Cook et al. found that approximately 97% of the papers that expressed a position on climate change endorsed the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by human activities. This percentage is often cited as evidence of a strong scientific consensus.

The claim that "32.6% of papers" debunk the 97% consensus is a misinterpretation of the study's findings. Cook et al. did identify a small percentage of papers that rejected the consensus, but these papers represented a minority view within the scientific community.

The scientific consensus is not determined by the number of papers but by the weight of the evidence and the agreement among experts. The fact that a minority of papers express dissenting views does not undermine the overall consensus.

Subsequent studies have also supported the idea of a strong scientific consensus on climate change. While the exact percentage may vary slightly, the consensus among climate scientists remains robust.

The claim that "32.6% of papers" debunk the consensus is a misinterpretation of the study's findings and does not accurately represent the state of scientific agreement on this issue. The consensus view on climate change is based on a substantial body of evidence and the agreement of a large majority of experts in the field.

Typical to form, Lee is just another AGW crackpot pissing in the ocean thinking that he can change its level. If you or your gaggle of AGW deniers had anything worthy to rebut the scientific consensus then it would have changed.

It hasn't. 

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 3:46pm:


Not even close. I gave you the paper. I gave you the link to their calculations. 65 Papers out of 11,944 said AGW was greater than +50%. Why do you deny the science?

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 3:46pm:


Nope. A total of 3933 papers out of 11,944 papers Endorsed, either explicitly or implicitly, AGW.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

So 97.1% of 32.6% Endorsed + 0.7% rejected or a total of 33.3%.

97.1% of 33.3% is 32.3%.

WE know you are mathematically challenged, but that is what the paper said.

You keep saying other studies, which is your preferred?

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 3:54pm:



How quickly you ran away from your misrepesentation of Cook. Now you're trying to run backward through time to find something.

Regardless, you just found something else that doesn't shake the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Try "Evolving Consensus on Human Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Carlton et al. (2015): This paper examined the evolution of the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature over time and found that it has steadily increased...

Again, Lee, if you had anything but quibble and bullshit, you and your pals would have changed the consensus on climate change. You haven't.

Have a rest, you're fighting a battle that you've already lost.