lee wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:20pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:16pm:
Yes but they also support the science of AGW as do many other reputable organisations!!!
They support a bogus paper. how does that add credibility. And all those institutions? Not one has said Cook is bogus. Where does that leave their credibility.
Cook published his methodology and established how he came to his conclusion....You may not agree with his methodology or his conclusion but how do YOU declare it is bogus....Most of the papers would have been data that did not address the causes of global warming so they were excluded....Only 0.7% of abstracts rejected AGW whilst 32.6% of abstracts endorsed AGW....This equates to 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming....What qualifications do you possess to discredit this research and what is the true consensus if Cook is wrong???
Quote:Abstract
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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:16pm:
You would do better to support your pathetic cherry picking argument with some pear reviewed science from a reputable source that disproves AGW..
Quote:If the science is flawed you should be able to provide a peer reviewed rebuttal to establish how you came to your conclusion....Just believing something is not true means nothing....The science has been published and peer reviewed by reputable organisations and scientists....Were are your rebuttals???