20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: Kashai

Between January 1st, 1991 and November 9, 2012 there has been 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change with a total of 33,690 authors (rounded up in the figure below).

A study has shown that of all these articles, only 24 deny anthropogenic climate change with a total of 34 authors, roughly 1 in 1000.

Post a link to the actual study they are referencing, I'd like to look at the data and methods behind their claims.

a reply to: D8Tee
do your own

www.climate-change-guide.com...

Here is the contact information for the web site offered.

You have been rude to me,

I would recommend under the circumstances to do your own homework.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee
do your own

www.climate-change-guide.com...

Here is the contact information for the web site offered.

You have been rude to me,

I would recommend under the circumstances to do your own homework.

No, you made the claim, now back it up with the actual study not some paraphrase from some alarmist site. Don't continue to post BS you can't back up with credible sources.

Your link is meaningless, do you understand that i want to look at the actual data and methods, not some drivel posted on an alarmist site.

Alls you ever do is post links to websites, I don't think you even understand what you are posting.

Now put up or shut up, present a link to the actual study.

a reply to: D8Tee


That is your opinion and I could express myself in other way's if you did not get the message.


I could seriously care less what you want to look at you can do it yourself or otherwise to can go....

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


That is your opinion and I could express myself in other way's if you did not get the message.

I could seriously care less what you want to look at you can do it yourself or otherwise to can go....

Well, put up or shut up time came around and you couldn't come through with the actual study itself, maybe now you'll shut up and quit damaging your own credibility.

a reply to: D8Tee


As far as your position its obviously so irrelevant that you decided to insult my ability to write in English. Accused me of being drunk, then related to me as an animal that is actually a hybrid.

Points to the fact that you are so insecure about your position that you resort to behavior that has been clinically related to lower brain functions in human beings.

Seriously I you are sure you are correct about what you are claiming you should submit a paper to Science and Technology.

Not go to a Forum and start insulting its members because they disagree with you.

So essentially just as you present that I am worthless to you; I feel you are worthless to me.

Are you having a problem understanding that

This is my last response to you in this thread.

a reply to: Kashai

This is my last response to you in this thread.

I can only hope you keep your word.

As far as your 'study', as I figured, it's easily discredited.

Powell has stacked the deck. You have to actually “clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or … that some other process better explains the observed warming” to be counted as “reject[ing] man-made global warming.” And if your article has “found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt,” Powell doesn’t count you as among those “reject[ing] man-made global warming.” But he offers no explanation as to what he means by “discrepancy,” “minor flaw,” “reason for doubt.” Those are highly subjective terms. And if your article discusses “methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects,” Powell counts you automatically as “implicitly accept[ing] human-caused global warming”–indeed, he thinks such is “obvious from the title alone.”

Hmmm. So if I think a natural climate cycle is bringing us into an unusually (but not unnaturally) warm period to which we’ll need to adapt in various ways, I’m counted as accepting “man-made global warming” not because I’ve said so but because anyone who writes about adaptation implicitly accepts it. Wow! Pretty difficult to swim outside that net!

a reply to: D8Tee

How many? And how many of them say that humans are the primary driver of the climate change?

Its called context.. Over 96 of published papers support AGW...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: D8Tee

How many? And how many of them say that humans are the primary driver of the climate change?

Its called context.. Over 96 of published papers support AGW...

Really? You have proof of this? Same old tired stories from people that haven't looked into the actual studies, just parroting what they've heard someone else say.

a reply to: purplemer


This link clearly supports your position.


Furthermore it provides sub links to the relevant data.

skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: Kashai
Skeptical science is not a credible source, it's ran by John Cook, the author of the grossly misleading 97 percent consensus paper that has been properly and thoroughly debunked on multiple occasions.

This one graphic sums it up, and it is from the paper itself, there is no defending that kind of garbage unless you have totally devoted yourself to the religion of global warming dogma and thrown the scientific method out the window. If you ever even knew what the scientific method was in the first place.

For those that don't know, John Cook holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology, he is no climate scientist, this is a pyschological operation against the peons, dig deeper folks the truth is out there.

Rubbish all the data is available at that site.

Why do you care who runs it?

a reply to: Kashai

Rubbish all the data is available at that site.

All what data is available at that site? The Cook paper data? It's also all on the graphic I provided.

See that inset in the bottom left of the graphic? The data that is used to construct the pie chart?

That data is directly from Cooks own paper. Can you please link me to the same data on skeptical science because I wouldn't doubt they don't tell the entire story there. The skeptical science site itself is rubbish ran by a guy who has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and has an agenda to push.

If you are too blinded by the warming dogma, I'm sorry I can't help you.

I have provided the data, are you going to try to dispute that the data included on the chart I provided is not indeed from Cooks own paper? Have you even read the paper?

So because he has a PHD in Cognitive Psychology you think its impossible for him to go beyond that?

Wrong.

John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.

Why do you think he was given that title?

The paper was awarded the best paper of 2013 published in Environmental Research Letters and is the most downloaded paper in the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics.

Why do you think caused the Institute of Physics to publish?

www.gci.uq.edu.au...

Do you really believe that it has to do with a Conspiracy to get you to pay more taxes?

And if so why?

a reply to: D8Tee


Further...


skepticalscience.com...

Its important that you provide links to your source.

a reply to: Kashai

Its important that you provide links to your source.

The source of the data in the image is like I told you, Cooks own paper. There is no disputing that.

Not on the one I linked...looks to me like fake data.

originally posted by: Kashai
Not on the one I linked...looks to me like fake data.

Yea, sure, whatever. Call whatever you are not capable of understanding fake. Read the damn paper, i's right there in black and white on Table Three. I don't know why I'm the one supplying the source FOR YOUR PAPER in the first place, you are a joke.

It's your guys paper, John Cook, you brought him up, you are the one that believes in a manufactured consensus that is no way shown in that paper unless you twist it to suit your needs and rely upon people only reading the title of the paper.

Jesus the paper itself is only 6 pages long, the only people that think it says there is a 97 percent consensus is the idiots that don't take the time to read it and only read the title.

That John Cook ain't dumb, he knows how to manipulate the population, remember, he's got a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and only a BS in any real science.

Peper since you can't find your own source

a reply to: D8Tee

Stop already D8 please.

You must realize that some of our posters do not care for the truth. You will never convince them because they already know you are right. They will continue to do exactly what you have encountered right in this thread.

They are not what they seem. Yes, it is a conspiracy ... it is a conspiracy of massive fraud!

There is money in AGW .... lots and lots of money.

Can't have sensible people letting loose with the truth. It will cost them $$$$.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

How much money is there in denying AGW? How many Big Businesses, oil companies, Big Industry, etc.?

Yeah, vested interests and all that.