http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...
They surveyed 10,257 people and got 75 to agree. That's less than 1%. The way they get to 97% is by ignoring the responses of 10180 people leaving 75 of 77.
The left knows they are lying and they don't care. That's the way they operate. They'll knowingly repeat lies if it serves their purpose. They don't care about the truth they only care about winning.
You totally made that up. The 0.03% number is totally pulled out of this ranters attic. I doubt you can find 3% of climatologists who don't support the mainstream theory.
In any case, the story this ranting "question" links to is not about the massive consensus, but is instead about a blogger who somehow obtained confidential information and the University is taking legal action against the blogger. The link has nothing to with the rant.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-e...
To understand what real scientists know and believe about climate change, refer to the Australia Academy of Science. Whatever some uneducated person might claim, the position of scientists in Australia is well-documented and available for all who want to know. (The link here is to a 23-page pdf from the Australia Academy of Science.)
http://www.science.org.au/sites/default/...
The original study was 2009 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
This was a study of US scientists but considering a majority of scientists and scientific organizations worldwide think the same and considering AGW is a scientific reality,well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to believe in reality
An educated, thoughtful, and honest person would correctly assume that if significantly less than 3% of the world’s climate scientists disagreed with the general definition of AGW and/or its scientific legitimacy – there would a flood of statements to that effect by both individual scientists and by their major organizations an affiliated groups. Not only do we see no disclaimers from either large numbers of scientists or scientific institutions, the only people who deny that the 97% estimate is approximately accurate are the same handful of scientists and millions of scientifically ignorant conspiracy freaks who have always based their beliefs on political ideology rather than scientific evidence.
The .3% comes from all the studies that they looked at, of which some large number were apparently considered irrelevant or did not make the strongest endorsement. They somehow gave more weight to a paper whose abstract casually mentions that CO2 is an important contributor to global warming but is actually about industrial materials science but ignored a paper that was expressly about global warming as irrelevant.
The daily caller is a conservative blog financed by British oil companies. Not a reliable source of news.
Its not that much only 77 Scientist
Sigh.
Why not just go and ask them what they think rather than trying to infer what they think from what they may or may not explicitly state in papers published on a wide variety of topics?
I would imagine the majority of Australian climate scientists would agree with the idea that our planet is warming and we're responsible. If they don't then they've been awfully quiet.
!@#$%^&*()
42
You may win the prize for most illogical argument of the day. The thesis of your question doesn't logically follow from what is mostly a completely useless study by Cook, and to top it off, you can't do math.
As someone in the field, my feeling is that between 90 and 100% of climate scientists believe that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming. I would think that it's closer to 90% than 100%, but the idea that it's 0.03% (or 0.3%, or 3%, or even 30%) is demonstrably stupid and out of touch with reality.
Since graphicconception isn't as dumb as you, I'm quite certain he realizes this, but he still tries to help with what he must know is a wrong argument. Not exactly honest.
quoted so extensively by the Left have gained such an uninformed group of followers?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/
Can we put that foolishness in perspective now?
I think the figure should be 0.3%. Still, both are a long way from 97%.
For details of how John Cook and the SkS team planned the survey see here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06... Note how the PR effort was started before the survey. I suppose you can do that if you are confident of the findings.
For a summary of the analysis see here: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05...
For a blog where Brandon Schollenberger worked through the data see here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-...
