98% of which group of scientists? The ones already on a globalist board of some sort? I bet the agreeing scientists on that globalist board only represent 15% of existing scientists in this area of study.
Does anyone know where they get their propaganized "98%" narrative?
There are many science papers claiming numbers around 97%. So it's "science"! However, we all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!
The first paper I came across was by Doran and Zimmerman (2009). They sent out surveys to 10,257 "Earth scientists". They got replies from 3,146 but they considered answers from only 77 people for this question. 75 of them agreed. Exactly how they chose those 77 people to believe is somewhat of a mystery.
I have links to several papers but The Science of Statisticulation sums up most of them. They are all seriously flawed in a variety of creative ways.
They did make the mistake of asking the members of the American Meteorological Society a couple of times. The first time they asked only 52% thought that the warming was mainly human. A far cry from 97%. The next year they made sure they got an answer they preferred! Such is statistics.
There is another famous paper by John Cook et al and they decided what the answer was going to be first. Their own data fails to show the 97% figure but, strangely, they do not include the data in the paper. It is on a website somewhere. It turns out that only 0.3% of the papers they looked at said man was mainly responsible. Cook et al also wrote up another paper which summarised the existing 97% papers, including their own, and concluded that it was 97% of scientists!
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
98% of which group of scientists? The ones already on a globalist board of some sort? I bet the agreeing scientists on that globalist board only represent 15% of existing scientists in this area of study.
Does anyone know where they get their propaganized "98%" narrative?
98%? I think it is inflation - it used to be 97%!
There are many science papers claiming numbers around 97%. So it's "science"! However, we all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!
The first paper I came across was by Doran and Zimmerman (2009). They sent out surveys to 10,257 "Earth scientists". They got replies from 3,146 but they considered answers from only 77 people for this question. 75 of them agreed. Exactly how they chose those 77 people to believe is somewhat of a mystery.
I have links to several papers but The Science of Statisticulation sums up most of them. They are all seriously flawed in a variety of creative ways.
They did make the mistake of asking the members of the American Meteorological Society a couple of times. The first time they asked only 52% thought that the warming was mainly human. A far cry from 97%. The next year they made sure they got an answer they preferred! Such is statistics.
There is another famous paper by John Cook et al and they decided what the answer was going to be first. Their own data fails to show the 97% figure but, strangely, they do not include the data in the paper. It is on a website somewhere. It turns out that only 0.3% of the papers they looked at said man was mainly responsible. Cook et al also wrote up another paper which summarised the existing 97% papers, including their own, and concluded that it was 97% of scientists!
Thanks so much for the informative reply! 👍
No problem. It was my previous hobby before 2016!
I'll bet they have a couple dart boards in their backroom (one would be all they needed) because global...climate change is soooo complicated..
They're using the IPCC narrative from the good ole Al Gore days. Just the same bullshit over and over again.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
Great article. I will use this one!
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
67.3% of statistics are just made up.
😆
You did get that right? I made up that 67.3% statistics are just made up.
Yes. I laughed. Good humor. I love this community.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
This one done a long time ago, but 9k PhD disagree with global warming.
Glad to have that. Thanks!!! I just sent it to my college-brainwashed son.
I used it 20 years ago in global warming arguments. That's why I knew it was out their.
There
Thanks.
They've got pretty big testicles so one can only guess that their rectum would be sizable enough to pull out such a narrative.
😆