Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 



Actually, it shows exactly that. Why don't you explain what you (think you) are seeing.


Furthermore...


Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.


Pretty undeniable which side of the fence this guy is coming from, and what he's trying to convey - successfully, imho - by his report/data.

edit on 10/4/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 





Pretty undeniable which side of the fence this guy is coming from, and what he's trying to convey - successfully, imho - by his report/data.


There is no data in his 'report' that supports the claim ...



Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming.



This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming.



How many of these papers explictly state humans are causing climate change.

Use his 'methodology' and count them. You can prepare a chart when you're done.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
According to HIS wording, and methodology linked on his page:


...and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper "rejects" human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations.


The very first line of his report reads..


Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. (and, asserts that this is wrong)


With a leadout like that, one would have to assume that once he pulled the articles - 'Human Caused' was the determining factor.

Beyond that, feel free to prepare your own chart, Slappy. (or, start Here)
edit on 10/4/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)


(post by talklikeapirat removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Oh, that's so cute. Good for you.


I got one...



edit on 10/4/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Asktheanimals
What's science got to do with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Any evidence that disagrees with their pre-determined outcomes is suppressed or thrown out.


Indeed. Hence, AGW is underestimated:

www.alternet.org...



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I always feel bad for the poor cows who get blamed for being one of the contributors to global warming. And strangely, nary a mention of how the 7 billion farting, belching, and defecating humans are having an effect on it.






top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join