The research, the most comprehensive analysis of climate research to date, finds that 97.1% of the studies published between 1991 to 2011 that expressed a position on man made climate change agreed that it was happening, and that it was due to human activity.
Study: 97% Agreement on Manmade Global Warming | Weather Underground
The climate was stable for the last 4.6 billion years – prior to humans increasing atmospheric CO2 by 0.0001 mole fraction.
“Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.
Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.
Men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2TTbs1RtI
😆
Gator,
Wouldn’t that impl that people get more liberal as they get older since we all get weaker as we get older? That dosn’t jive with my experience!
Speak for yourself! I have never been stronger, even when I lifted weights in my twenties, I was not lifting as much as I do now. Besides, the aging process is irrelevant where this study is concerned.
And I would differ with the study in that the stronger I have become, both mentally and physically, the more libertarian I have am.
Nix the ‘have’, just ‘am’. 😉
Strength is a state of mind! So is being a weak sniveling democrat! 😉
“…Men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research…”
I suppose they’re right – real men shoulder their own load, rather than depending on other to do their work for them.
Fits the available evidence. Just look at the scrawny little girl in the White House. Take away the padded suits and probable body armor and he is an effeminate little runt. And how he throws a baseball!
99% of the male leftists I have known are little girls like him. There is the rare exception like Clinton, but his case was about being a momma’s boy and abused by his drunk father which in turn led him to abuse and rape women himself.
Claims such as they are predicated on the belief that we have a reasonably accurate grasp of all the mechanisms that drive Earth’s climate. We can prove this claim by referring to the phenomenal predictive accuracy of climate models. 🙂
I agree that Humans are causing Climate Change! If it were not for the Pathological Climate Scientists writing those papers we would have only had normal variable climate, Rather than Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists playing Chicken Little. CACA running round claiming the sky is Falling!
This is that ridiculous John Cook survey where all the “evaluators” colluded amongst themselves to vote in the correct way. Nonsense.
And just what is it with these guys that attracts them to this 97% business? Is it numerology or astology or something? It’s the only number they use.
Yeah.
The 97% business is about keeping 97% of those idiots in academia in a paying job making up more BS. By consulting tea leaves, ouija boards, numerology, astrology, chicken guts and the likes. Since those 97% of idiots have no clue on all the other real world natural factors in climate/weather and they like cherry picking the data to the point the cherries they’ve picked are completely rotten.
Well, they knew that they’d never meet a 100% consensus – all it takes is one credible scientist to say “NO”, and the 100 percent is blown.
What’s interesting is that the 97 percent doesn’t seem to change,
In 2004, one paper stated “… That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”.
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position…”
In 2010, another paper stated “…Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]…”
So, after 3 years of intense consensus building, Cook et al use another sieve to filter out their data (examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’)
“…We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming…”
Even his numbers are off – of the 33.6% that expressed a position, only 91.7% endorsed the consensus.
As bad as I am with math, I can see that 97.1% of 33.6% is still a smaller number than the 66.4% of abstracts that expressed no position on AGW (my math works out to 32.6% of all papers that blame man – less than a third of the 11?944 abstracts he used)
Maybe he could use a good Mathematician – there wasn’t a single math expert listed in the paper.