What are you saying? You can't read or you refuse to? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/24/quantifying-the-consensus-on-global-warming-in-the-literature-a-comment/
Cook *et al. *(2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). The authors own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed. Consensus my ass. . On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > but sam you did not. You used a flawed argument and a straw man. Then you > had a verbal temper tantrum. > > You did not demonstrate that the study was too flawed. > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I ridiculed this junk science back when it came out. Did you suddenly > > forget? > > > > Here's more debunking: > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ > > > > > > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/24/quantifying-the-consensus-on-global-warming-in-the-literature-a-comment/ > > > > Albert Einstein, when told that 100 Nazi scientists had published a book > > rejecting his theory of special relativity as mere Jewish science, > > responded that a single paper would have sufficed to refute his > hypothesis. > > His own single paper of 1905 on the electrodynamics of moving objects* > *had > > demonstrated why Newtons laws, till then universally accepted as true, > > incompletely described the motion of celestial objects. > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNM1RQWkQtTFpQUmc/edit > > > > And there's this to think about: > > > > 97% of the children believe in Santa > > 97% of paranoid believe they are being followed > > 97% of the homoeopaths believe in homoeopathy > > 97% of the astrologists believe in astrology > > 97% of the KKK think lynchmobs are a good thing > > 97% of the intelligent design gang are absolutely convinced that God made > > it all > > 97% of all the interviewed Zen buddists were convinced it is possible to > > clap with one hand > > 97% of the paganist movement think sandals are fashionable > > 97% of the physicians didnt believe in washing their hands before doing > > surgery > > 97% of the politicians think they are doing some great things > > > > . > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html > > > > > > A new survey <http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article> > of > > > over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science > > > team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers > taking a > > > position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature > > > that humans are responsible > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365420 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
