philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:50pm:
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....
Yes petal. Now how does exactly extrapolate to 97% of climate scientists? You don't just exclude data because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas.
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:50pm:
.What qualifications do you possess to discredit this research and what is the true consensus if Cook is wrong???
The American Meteorological Society surveyed their members at about
52%.
"The only study which actually asked the scientists was done by the American Meteorological Society in 2013. It showed that only 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was “mostly human.” Among professional forecasters, the number was closer to 38%. No group came anywhere close to 97%."
https://realclimatescience.com/the-52-consensus/http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1Remember that question I asked about how many societies gave their members a vote?
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:50pm:
philperth2010 wrote Yesterday at 9:16pm:
You would do better to support your pathetic cherry picking argument with some pear reviewed science from a reputable source that disproves AGW..
Poor phil doesn't know you can't disprove a negative.
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:50pm:
The science has been published and peer reviewed by reputable organisations and scientists...
You mean like the recent IPCC SR5?
"Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al. 2013)."
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1.pdf""Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/I believe "since 1970" is in the last 100 odd years.
You mean ths 90 odd climate scientists didn't know what they were talking about but you still believe them.
Forum
Pages: 
David Attenborough gives dire warning on climate ! (Read 31148 times)
