Jump to content

Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Forethat said:

The THIRD paper I've found where there are references to an alleged 97% consensus is published by IOP 2010 (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature).

 

This is widely known as the paper where climate-scepticism is "debunked". They reviewed 11,944 scientific papers. 97% of the papers agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activity has SOME effect on global warming. Here's the kicker; only 41 (!!) of the papers stated that human activity and CO2-production is the main cause for the global warming since 1950. 41 out of 11,944 is 0.3%.

The FOURTH reference to an alleged 97% consensus is - unbelievably enough - again made by John Cook in a paper published by IOP 2016 (John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T Doran, William R L Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W Maibach, J Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G Skuce, Sarah A Green, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming). In this paper, they are making references to the three papers I've mentioned earlier and are basically reusing the results in those three reports to support their own agenda.

 

The abstract, again, shows that these papers are is more or less a statistic trickery:

Quote

Abstract

 

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. 

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You go girl hold their feet to the fire make them face what’s happening so all of us can start making responsible changes and grow into a more sustainable world I’m proud of you kiddo!

And first of all make her shut up. 

Small point that needs clarifying. It was Greta's parents that filled her head with confusion, hate and panic, ergo they "stole her dreams". Textbook child abuse really. When she gets bored of this cl

Posted Images

30 minutes ago, Forethat said:

The THIRD paper I've found where there are references to an alleged 97% consensus is published by IOP 2010 (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature).

 

This is widely known as the paper where climate-scepticism is "debunked". They reviewed 11,944 scientific papers. 97% of the papers agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activity has SOME effect on global warming. Here's the kicker; only 41 (!!) of the papers stated that human activity and CO2-production is the main cause for the global warming since 1950. 41 out of 11,944 is 0.3%.

 

 

yes, i found him earlier, the way he make up result is a bit distressing,

John Cook

[email protected]
130.102.158.12

When I read an abstract like this:

Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt

... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt...

We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.

 

i sure wouldnt spend my time going through all the abstracts,

so i only read this abstract he is referring to as "endorsement of co2 theory",

(which, do note, is the very premise of this survey)

but the fact is that abstract does not ever mention co2 nor man made,

they simply expect temperature to rise another 0.5%C or so over the course of

the next 100 years.

but what ever, john cook and fellow enthusiastic amateurs happily add

it to the 'scientific literature that think climate is largely driven by man'

so to recap, he takes an abstract that does not ever mention

co2 or otherwise man made global warming, and declare that very same

abstract support the theory of man made global warming through

co2 recycling ! adding to the much vaunted 97 consensus,

even when it doesnt add

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah...brokenbone the master of climate science and false syllogism. 
I have to conclude that 97% of the world's scientists are wrong and he is right?
Yet according to his post he doesn't even understand the principles of elementary school science .... Bit of an oxymoron there?


Another mind-numbed robot regurgitating the 97% lie.

Shocking
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forethat said:

This little clip summarises how climate activists use stats and "research" to prove that CO2 causes global warming.

"Correlation is not causation".

 

Beautiful!

 

 

there is also the reverse fact causation, the eco-anxiety brigade

often brings up how co2 levels causes more natural disasters

like wildfires, tornados etc, but data show that during 1900 to 2000,

weather has become less extreme in the latter half.

out of 15 level 4 or higher tornados, only 3 came after 1960,

and those 3 occurred 1960-1969.

using eco-anxiety logic, you could then argue that co2

is the salvation versus natural disaster,

or, low atmospheric co2 levels causes natural disasters

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-2001-3.pdf

wildfires.jpg

tornados 1900-2000.jpg

Edited by brokenbone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its quite funny reading posys on here trying to discredit the settled science.

 

Consensus was reached by about 1200 of the most eminent climate scientists who studied all the for and against.

 

But tv posters know better. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

'low atmospheric co2 levels causes natural disasters'

 

Deforestation certainly makes things like floods worse. CO2 aids the greening and should, if the overflowing population doesn't destroy everything under their feet, help a bit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

IMG_0082.PNG

I hereby make claim the argument that no jokes of climate change exist false. Leno with his lovely classic car collection is aiding the beneficial CO2-ification of the planet, too, good dude. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pitiful that some don't realise that intelligent comment on climate denial is an oxymoron.

Don't even realise how silly those shortfalls on interpretation of the facts are ......

 

Probably don't know what Dunning Kruger is either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...