This probably points out best what is wrong with Cook et al, alleged study on Climate Science consensus and why no one with the exception of activists take it seriously. Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts. MORE http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/igno...andom-people-rating-journal-article-abstracts
Are you saying that science should use double blind studies!!!!? Are you saying that personal bias prevents authors from being raters!!!!? HOW DARE YOU!!!!
Some dont agree with your personal opinion.= http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
That was ... incoherent. The bizarre article by Jose Duarte. Who, apparently, is a grad student with a blog. Duarte rants that Cook should have asked scientists. Unfortunately for Duarte, that's exactly what Cook did. Duarte either didn't read Cook13, or he's lying about it. No worries, though. Because Duarte is some combination of incompetent and dishonest, he's got a bright career ahead of him as denier hero. Oh, for those who haven't actually looked at Cook13 -- meaning essentially all deniers, who just auto-rant hate at Cook because their cult commands it -- I'll help you out. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article --- 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 --- See? No reviewers there. Cook _asked_ the scientists what the views of their papers were. Duarte has some 'splainin to do as to why he claimed Cook didn't ask the scientists.
Wrong again. You should try to find out what you are talking about before you show your ignorance. Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. That was 41 papers of the 11,994 that specifically expressed a position on AGW or 0.3%. You fall for anything.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue. In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.
If rater bias is the problem, as you and your idiotic website claim, why then does the consensus show up just as strongly when the authors themselves rate their own papers? More idiocy from Denierstan, where they never actually read the stuff they criticize.
Since 41 out of 42 papers is 97.6%, and 40 out of 41 papers is also 97.6%, one has to wonder how idiotically innumerate Deniers have to be to believe that a fraction of 97.2% was drawn from 41 papers. You've been lied to, chump.
Why wouldn't such a result show up from a survey conducted by an alarmist blog that only AGW proponents are likely to respond to?
Out of 12,000 plus papers, selecting a very small minority of those has two problems. Who selected them (Cook et al) and the selection is too small.
This is amazing. Jose has credibility based on exactly what? Love it when the best anyone can find to support their position is a blogger who's only qualifications is the ability to type a blog.
That is the problem with the CAGW side. Inability to judge on the merits of what is written and instead resort to an appeal to authority.
M So how many scientist are there in the United States and just exactly what qualification were used to define who qualified as a scientist? Maybe you can provide a link that will give the required details so it can be determined if this voluntary poll has any credibility.
What was written is just babble with no merit whatsoever. The only credibility the article could have had was the qualifications of the author which turn out to,be nonexistent.
Like I said, appeal to authority. Thanks for the example. Others have torn apart the poorly done biased review from Cook before. No one other than alarmists take it seriously.
Here is a comprehensive listing of polls on global warming. Shows pretty overwhelming support among scientists in the field in multiple different polls.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
There is so much wrong with many of those alleged polls, which are mostly not polls, that is would take quite awhile to point them out but a couple stand out. One is that most are reviews of abstracts. Another is this: " 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." If you understand the process for publishing, that does not mean they are right or that being vetted by the same people in your field getting grant money is even fair. I could go on but the CAGW alarmists want only the political side of the issue and not the actual science. I noticed that list does not catalog the 'surveys' that don't support CAGW.
You do of course realize the contradictions in your position. You post a blog that you are using as your authority to deny Golbal Warming. The joke is your authority has no authority.
I don't think there is any clearer example of fact and science having a left wing bias. All the right wing has left is to pretend the scientists are nearly all corrupt in the field. No other way to explain why the RWers are right and the science is wrong. I don't know why anyone still argues with them about it. What is going on is obvious.
Which science, the incorrect CO2 centric models or observational science? I will stick with observational science and skepticism, the foundation of science.
An entire field of science. You are really sticking with your party line in the face of evidence to the opposite. Partisanship does that.
Evidence? You mean the hiatus in warming when more warming was predicted by the models? Sunspots 2014: Two big surprises
Feel free to post links to polls that show that climate scientists do not support global warming. Would prefer links to the actual poll rather that blogs reporting on polls.
Scientists that don't find their 'star' in CAGW and the millions spent on it by government also find different outcomes.
