Thanks Lee........

Well ladies and gentlemen there you have it straight from the archbishops / Vatican (IPCC)'s mouth on Anthropogenic Global Warming..

They even have the gall to put it right under your nose.

Study that highlighted sentence and try to understand what it means.

Only then will you be able extricate yourselves from this false religion called AGW.

Become a sheep dog and stop being a sheeple........!!!



https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/reporting.html

Just in case you have difficulty seeing it,

Quote:

The CO2 logarithmic graph

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 4:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:


Haha nahhhh that's not me....!

I would think that's your reflectional in the mirror...

That's me right there in black and white......

blanks again.....sorry...........

Ajax wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 4:38pm:



More than a hint of collie there Ajax

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 6:55pm:



You men like Nature magazine, IPCC?

Now that wiki article says there is a consensus on climate change. Although that wasn't my argument. I said science wasn't done by consensus.

"Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3]"


So ok I looked at a reference. John Cook et al 2013.

Now I have linked to this before because quite often people say the Cook et al paper says that 97% of climate scientists say global warming is happening and is human caused.

From the paper referenced -

"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

11.,944 papers. 68.4% had no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW
0.7% rejected, and
0.3% were unsure.

From that we can take that 33.3% expressed an opinion on climate change (lines 2 and 3). 97.1% of that 33.3% of abstracts (not climate scientists) endorsed the consensus.

So 33.3% of 97.1% is  32.33%. NOT 97% of abstracts or climate scientists.

Further the number of climate scientists who said more than 50% warming was due to AGW was 0.3% or 41 papers.

This can be seen at -

https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

Reference "Endorsement"

And should you wish to look you can see the ratings given at column 3.

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/self_vs_abstracts_private.txt

Enjoy.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 7:42pm:


much like your guessing on climate change and the CONsensus.

And I shot down your ONLY reference.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 7:53pm:



The Climate Council is a volunteer organisation?

"We’re made up of some of the country’s leading climate scientists, energy, health and policy experts, as well as a dedicated team of staff, and a huge community of volunteers and supporters who support our work."

"The Climate Council was founded in 2013 by tens of thousands of supporters, in Australia’s largest ever crowd-funding campaign, to create a new, independent and 100% community-funded organisation in response to the abolition of the Australian Climate Commission.  "

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/faqs/

You did notice they didn't say THEY volunteer.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 7:53pm:


it saves them looking for another job.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 7:53pm:


You mean like Nature magazine, IPCC, NASA? All those fossil fuel funded organisations?

What a tool.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 7:53pm:


I am  paid by the Feds under either Labor or the Coalition, and if I don't win Lotto that won't change. You see petal I am an old age pensioner with a small super.