It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Was not directed at you, as your confirmation bias prevents you from even considering that the 'climate scientists' might be right.
Overall the Earth is losing ice and the Antarctica ice gain, is more about overall surface area gain and not so much volume gain. Also the Antarctic is observing a warming trend. This suggests that eventually that Antarctica will see ice loss, but only time will tell.
So do you think the observed rising CO2 levels is not something we should be concerned about?
Do you think radiative forcing if CO2 is not proven?
(that is what my post was about, all you did was rant about Antarctic ice because it casts doubt about AGW to the lay reader).
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
97%+ of the the scientists who study this is a hell of a lot more than [I] some of the scientists[/I].
Go ahead and live in lala land, keep the blinders on and pretend that only some of the climate scientists agree with AGW theory.
My opinion on climate science is based on science and what the people who actually study this say.
Your reply to me is quite juvenile, but I guess juvenile knee jerk responses are what is popular on ATS these days.
Care to.offer any actual science that refutes what I wrote about CO2?
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
The 97% figure has been cited over and over from various credible sources. Try google or ATS's search engine if you truly want to know where the 97% figure comes from.
Its pointless to cite again, especially for you because like any half way intelligent troll you will come up with some BS statistical fallacies that at best becomes a circle jerk of words and debating semantics....where no science will be addressed.
I challenge the aware and information seekers of ATS to do their own research on the 97% figure and come to their own conclusion.
Do not take what trolls like myself and -FBB write as the Gods honest truth, do your own research!!
Both of us are pretty good at debate and manipulation 'tactics.'
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Claiming to post links to valid scientific sources is not the same as actually providing links to valid sources that dispute AGW.
Remember I've argued both sides of the fence on this topic. What I try to argue now on the climate threads is backed up by science and observations.
I'm older, more rational, less emotionally attached to an argument.
So again I challenge you to bring some science to this discussion that counters the AGW theory!
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Is NASA.not a good enough source?
climate.nasa.gov...
We already know you dont like skeptical science, but here is their take on the 97%:
www.skepticalscience.com...
The Guardian is a good source too:
www.theguardian.com...
What does the weather underground say?
www.wunderground.com...
I'm standing by for your bastardization of statistics to.make your claim that the 97% figure is bogus.
ps, you are in denial if you claim that you do not troll here
We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate
publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not
comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire cli-
mate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most
high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore,
we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed re-
searchers in CE and UE groups.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
97%+ of the the scientists who study this is a hell of a lot more than some of the scientists.
Go ahead and live in lala land, keep the blinders on and pretend that only some of the climate scientists agree with AGW theory.
My opinion on climate science is based on science and what the people who actually study this say.
Your reply to me is quite juvenile, but I guess juvenile knee jerk responses are what is popular on ATS these days.
Care to.offer any actual science that refutes what I wrote about CO2?
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Why do a need to explain why NASA is a good source of information?
Especially to a troll.....
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
So you also think NASA is full of crap with the 97% figure?
I could cite scores and scores of citations from credible universities that back up the 97% figure ...
The people who actually study this agree that AGW is real.
All the papers in the middle, he figured, weren’t neutral on the subject — they were settled on it.