No one knows? You should tell that to virtually every climatologist and science organization in the world. You must be smarter than all of them huh?
So you are not sure if man's release of greenhouse gasses and CO2 - the earth's most important greenhouse gas - which has increased by 40% because of these emissions, has resulted in the warming of the air and seas and the melting of the earth's ice that we are seeing. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. I'm glad we cleared that up.
So to recap : 1)Oreskes found that out of all the papers on climate science between 1993 and 2003 that not a single one rejected the consensus position. 2) Doran in 2009 found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. ..... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 3)...in 2010 Anderegg did a study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010) For today..... 4) The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3. vision prize participants the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good. Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.
These are the stats from the Doran Paper itself. ------------------- what troll you are fraudcurrents ... ... we have gone over this 100 times.. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/ Oreskes data base also shows very few if any papers support your agw consensus and state man made co2 is causing warming. The vast majority are neutral... or if they did support the consensus they were using now failed computer models to speculate. there is zero evidence man made co2 is causing warming and there is no consensus. â0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%â PRESS RELEASE â September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. -------------- the vision prize pays people to pick answers...it is a clever scam. its by IOP the nutters who published cooks discredited paper. http://www.visionprize.com/faq How does the poll work? Each Vision Prize question has two parts â the first part will ask which answer you believe to be most likely and the second part will ask you to predict how all participants will answer. Based on your answers and how accurately you predict the answers of the other participants, you will receive a Vision Score. The higher your Vision Score, the more you earn in charity gift cards to support the charity of your choice. Charity gift cards are our way of thanking you for your participation. Not all participants will earn charity donations in every poll, but to maximize your Vision Score and charity donation, you should answer both parts of each question in accordance with your best guess even if you are very uncertain. All questions in this poll ask for your best guess about what you expect â not what you hope â will be the true outcomes. Gift Card winners can choose any public charity to which to donate their prizes through the Give page on the Vision Prize website. TOP.... The Vision Prize incentivized scoring system is designed to reward answers that represent your best guess of the true answer (which, for some questions, may not be known for many years). For the first part of each question, it does this by rewarding answers that are more common than the group expects them to be. (You are free to think strategically when giving your answer, but answering truthfully will earn you just as high a Vision Score.) For the second part of each question, the scoring algorithm rewards accurate prediction of the group's responses to the first part. Your Vision Score is a combination of these rewards. Refer to the example below, which illustrates high scores in a hypothetical case. TOP
Fraudcurrents is one of those guys who confuses a fraudulent consensus for science. let us know when you have proof man made co2 causes warming in our current environment. Let me know when you have some data showing CO2 leads change in temps instead of trailing change in ocean temps by one year. [/QUOTE] I mean look at how the green consistently trails but matches the shape. Only a moron troll or fraud would keep pretending the way you do fraudcurrents.
So to recap : 1)Oreskes found that out of all the papers on climate science between 1993 and 2003 that not a single one rejected the consensus position. 2) Doran in 2009 found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. ..... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 3)...in 2010 Anderegg did a study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010) For today..... 4) The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3. vision prize participants the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good. Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.
to recap... 1. when you search oreskes database you will also find zero or almost zero papers support the idea that man made co2 are causing the warming. 2. Doran used 77 out of 3000 responses to come up with his misrepresentation. 3. Anderegg was a joke of a study. They only looked at "experts" published 20 or more times in agw nutter journals and then examined the most cited papers to develop their list. It was all complete b.s. 4. the vision prize pays people to predict agw nutter answers.
No, you are wrong. The studies speak for themselves. Anyone can see the methodology. 77 out of 79 climatologists really is 97%, douchebag liar. When is asking experts a bad idea? You are just lying about the vision prize. So far we have four separate studies showing 97% consensus. More to follow.