We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

The 5000 number was referencing the papers which were deemed to have taken an explicit or implied position on climate change. But you're right, ~12000 were evaluated in total and, of those, ~4200 took a position and were evaluated to reach the 97% claim.

 

And yet that doesn't make a 97 percent claim. It's just acting like those ~8000 papers don't exist. But they do. And they need more info. Like me.

 

Here is where sampling, polling, and other surveys comes into play.

If you sample 4000 out of a total population of 12000, you get a margin of error of ~1%. And that's even with an 80% confidence rating. So we can be confident that somewhere between 95-99% agreement applies to the rest of the community.

And then we have the fact that Cook also sent out surveys to all of the authors. They could voluntarily answer that survey with their own preferences and conclusions in regard to AGW. The surveys returned an agreement of 98%, I believe. And that is clearly within the aforementioned margin of error.

And finally, we have the fact that Cook is not the only peer reviewed study on this topic. There are four OTHER studies which relied on different methodology, samples, and groups. All of the studies found an agreement rate of roughly 97%.

I'm happy I could provide you some additional information.

 

It's cool. You really want to make that the end all and be all of things.

It's a farce. 8000 papers were completely dismissed. That reeks of bs to me. To you, it's science!

You can have the last word. I'm sure it'll be just as filled with you convincing yourself as your previous two posts were.

Edit: the "poll" was of 12000 people. Answers by 8000 weren't what they wanted to hear so they acted like they didn't exist. That's what happened. Not your they polled 4000 out of 12000.

Here's the actual consensus report from cook:
60% of scientists need more data.

 

Here's the problem with your logic, you think the 8000 were dismissed, but they weren't. Those papers just did not take an explicit or implicit position in their papers. It would be wrong to assume that the authors of those papers don't personally have an opinion just as it would be wrong to assume that the authors of those papers have an opinion that disagrees or agrees with their peers.

But we can use the science of statistics to reach an extremely educated guess. Do you take issue with the science associated with margins of error? Do you have a reason to believe that the authors of the roughly 8000 papers would be substantially different from the authors of the 4000 papers (even though the authors are the same in many)?

 

lol what? just history. you never heard of an ice age?? what the hell are they teaching in schools now?? oh thats right gender studies..

 

Two Canadian researchers analyzed Michael Mann's infamous Hockey Stick graph and calculations and found it to be fraudulent.
Whatever data was put in produced his hockey stick. Their work was reported in October, 2004, almost thirteen years ago.
Fraud passed off as science. It's everywhere, and thousands are raking in billions in government grants. Democrats call such fraudulent work "science." It isn't.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

 

Muller has been discredited even by deniers such as Dr. Judith Curry.

This tactic of dredging up what has already been discredited is a serious reflection on your own lack of interest in an honest appraisal.

 

Isn't it great that you can just stick with a report from 2004 as a reason to dismiss any and all new evidence to the contrary?

It requires so little intelligence!

 

You call the 2nd law a simplistic view,

like any other believers in global warming

you did not know anything about the term “climate”,

I bet you, like any other believers in global warming, have no clue about the process of warming,

but you are telling me that you have a voice to decide who is an expert and who is a charlatan, and does consensus matter or it is just an another deception.

Go away, you have no shame.

Your NASA scientists as well as all 100% of other climate scientists are charlatans.

They have no shame.

Scumbags of Obama's or republican government have been hiring and promoting NASA, NOAA etc scientists according to the level of mutual scum buggery.

No decent man can make to NASA or to any other government fed agency.



Go away, you have no shame.

 

Why isn't this thread in conspiracy theories?

 

Bzzzzt:

Argument by ad hominem.

Thanks for playing!

 

Yea yea, I got it. I have no shame.

Such logic. So wow.

 

Are you saying that a measurement of 410 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a conspiracy?

 

if that was the only problem then sure.. but you have time and time again shady practices from the AGW crowd that just points to the whole thing as a scam..
you have climate gate.
then using data from heat island weather stations..
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html

"So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."

And them once again "cooking" the numbers
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

its time and time again it shows what a scam it is. but we are still supposed to trust them??

 

Yes. They have empirical evidence, credibility, and credentials.

If you want to dismiss the data from that bullshit climategate, you are free to do so. It happened about 8 years ago. So what are you going to use to excuse the next 7 years of data? Or how about the data that did not come from that one institute?

The heat island bullshit that you're citing ALSO comes from 7 years ago. What are you going to use to excuse the next 7 years of data? Or how about the data which did not rely upon those specific stations?

 

no they have destroyed there credibility. And they got caught again just a few years ago cooking the numbers again so its not just climatgate that happened 7 years ago

 

Who is "they?" Be specific

 

pretty much the entire AGW group pushing the doomsday narrative falls into the "push agenda by any means" category

 

That's not very specific.

 

China is the globe's largest CO2 emitter. But who cares ?? They have a pass until ~ 2030 when they might consider doing something about it. What are the odds that they will ?? Meanwhile they continue to realized large rates of economic growth (6% is considered a slow year) and laugh at the US and western Europe who have instituted restrictive policies on fossil fuels. Thankfully DJT will turn that around for the US.

 

AFM exemplifies why USA is going backwards economically. China has about one-quarter the energy consumption per capita of USA and is reducing emissions faster than USA.

AFM's Trump false-fact propaganda has no place in rational arguments.

 

and you exemplify what is wrong with liberals. Dont like what was said? change the question.. he stated China was the largest co2 emitter, you didnt address that point at all..

 

The US is growing at ~ 1% gdp per year in non recession years adjusted for population growth and inflation. That is the result of the Obama/Liberal policies which have reduced economic growth from the ~3% growth in non recession years of the supply side policies of Reagan, 41, Clinton, and 43. Trump will go back to supply side which will result in the economy growing again.

China is not reducing CO2 emissions.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/

 

What I find frustrating about this is that we try to change our domestic CO2 production, when what we should be changing is our CO2 consumption.
Putting the emphasis on production just means the production will go outside the jurisdiction - ie to China, or Mexico or wherever there is less regulation.
If we paid for our embedded CO2 in the products we consume, wherever they are produced, and the proceeds raised given back as a tax rebate, the market will react so rapidly it would make your head spin. Nothing like competition to make change, its the capitalist way.