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.
Post a link to the actual study they are referencing, I'd like to look at the data and methods behind their claims.
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.
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.
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....
I can only hope you keep your word.
This is my last response to you in this thread.
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!
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.
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...
All what data is available at that site? The Cook paper data? It's also all on the graphic I provided.
Rubbish all the data is available at that site.
John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.
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.
originally posted by: Kashai
Not on the one I linked...looks to me like fake data.