The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

cancel2 2022

Canceled
I think that I've lost count of the number of people on here that have spouted the 97% consensus garbage, so here is a devastating analysis of the canard.

52percent_ams-vs-97percent_sks.jpg


Read More: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol


Climate change[edit]

According to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small".[4] He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming".[5]

Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits




your guy who did this study is a hack
 
Oh BTW even this guys findings show most agree that there is a manmade component to global warming.

Oh and BTW he also says we are warming
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol


Climate change[edit]

According to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small".[4] He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming".[5]

Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits




your guy who did this study is a hack

That you consider yourself able to judge anyone as being a hack is just beyond parody. :palm:
 
I did the research in the articles to FIND OUT who the hell did the study.

The article didn't want to say who for some reason


ahahahahahahahaha
 
Where in the article is there any reference to Richard Tol? You are a complete and total imbecile who seems to have absolutely no self awareness.


http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/

Seeing as you are so fond of Wikipedia, here is the profile of Prof. Judith Curry. Got anything on her?

Curry has stated that she is troubled by the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review. She has written that climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public and should engage with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[SUP][12][/SUP]
In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[SUP][13][/SUP] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[SUP][12][/SUP]
In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. In the site's "About" section, the blog's purpose is stated as "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[SUP][3][/SUP]
Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[SUP][14][/SUP] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[SUP][15][/SUP]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
 
a you people are missing that even this smuck said most of the people he surveyed said they believe GW is effected by man.
 
you keep groaning Aox .

are you having pains in your truth receptor nodes again?


did your specially selected study guy TOL tell you most experts believe GW is at least in part manmade?
 
Back
Top