Ninety Seven Percent

3 Responses to Ninety Seven Percent

1. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

   June 20, 2014 at 10:24 am

   I reposted that to Deviantart yesterday. One person who is on the fence asked two really good questions:

   1) What does “Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it” exactly mean (especially the part about ‘minimising’)
   2) The fact that close to 8000 climate scientists aren’t taking a position on this is very surprising….

   My answer:

   I think the best example of that would be Judith Curry. She believes that ‘man-made’ warming is substantial – less than 50% according to her Stadium Wave theory – BUT: she does not believe it to be ‘catastrophic.’

   That point Is the Main Thing. In every argument with (pardon my language) shrieking hysterics on this site, if you do not believe that ‘man-made’ global warming is absolutely catastrophic to the environment, animals, plants, fish, humans…. then you are a ‘climate denier.’ This is why one cannot have a reasonable, calm argument with such people here on DA.

   And you make an Excellent point about the ‘close to 8000′ climate scientists. In point of fact, there is usually more than one person involved in each of those papers, sometimes a 3, 4, maybe more. So now we’re talking substantially over 16,000 climate scientists who don’t take a position. This is another point that the vast majority of people are not aware of- it is Always spoken about, as if all the papers cited by the IPCC in its’ reports, are making the claim that they are all about ‘man-made’ global warming. They are NOT. They are just studies about the current cycle of climate change we are going through.

   Reply
2. John B., M.D. says:

   June 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm

   The Heartland Institute – “Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus (2014-05-14): http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

   Reply
3. SDB says:

   June 22, 2014 at 6:24 am

   stevengoddard,

   How do we know the actual disaggregated numbers of Cook et al. 2013? I’ve read this his original here:
   http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

   And I don’t see the 1-7 disaggregated at all. Specifically I’m trying to figure out how we know how many abstracts were category 1, how many were cateogry 2, and so on.

   I’ve seen the breakdown disaggreagted in Monkton and on various blogs, but I never see a citation or a link to know how we know. Can you help me out here?

   Thanks!

   Reply