Quite possibly the dumbest tweet yet

[master_shake_]

Bullshit. It's not what your actual source says. Here's is what it actually says:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta



It makes no difference whatsoever how many scientific papers are out there which do not address the topic of global warming. How stupid do you think we are?

all the 11,944 papers in that chart addressed global warming.

only .5% explicitly said man is to blame.

66.7 percent had no position if man did make global warming.

does that sound like a consensus?

 

[woolfe9998]

all the 11,944 papers in that chart addressed global warming.

only .5% explicitly said man is to blame.

66.7 percent had no position if man did make global warming.

does that sound like a consensus?

Well let's see, when 97% of those papers actually expressing an opinion say that global warming is largely man made, we can only assume that this is a matter of accepted consensus and that this opinion doesn't need to be expressed in every paper on the subject. It depends on the topic of the paper. The opinion is only going to be there if it there is a reason to express it in the paper in question. If you want to know what percentage of climate scientists believe the warming is largely man made, you poll the scientists. You don't take a count of what papers express that opinion because whether the opinion is there in a given paper will depend on the context of the research they are reporting. Interestingly, polling shows that the percentage of climate scientists believing in MMGW is very similar to the percentage of papers expressing this opinion among those which express any opinion at all. i.e. 97%. Also from the same data source as your chart:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

I just linked the data which is the source of your chart twice now. Now please provide a link to where you got the actual chart from.

 

[master_shake_]

Well let's see, when 97% of those papers actually expressing an opinion say that global warming is largely man made, we can only assume that this is a matter of accepted consensus and that this opinion doesn't need to be expressed in every paper on the subject. It depends on the topic of the paper. The opinion is only going to be there if it there is a reason to express it in the paper in question. If you want to know what percentage of climate scientists believe the warming is largely man made, you poll the scientists. You don't take a count of what papers express that opinion because whether the opinion is there in a given paper will depend on the context of the research they are reporting. Interestingly, polling shows that the percentage of climate scientists believing in MMGW is very similar to the percentage of papers expressing this opinion among those which express any opinion at all. i.e. 97%

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I just linked the data which is the source of your chart. Now please provide a link to where you got the actual chart from.

it's not 97 percent of 100 percent of papers.

it''s 97 percent of 33.27 percent of papers that expressed an opinion of man making global warming.

that's where the 97 percent came form.

66.7 percent studied it and didn't have opinion either way.

not a consensus.

 

[woolfe9998]

it's not 97 percent of 100 percent of papers.

it''s 97 percent of 33.3 percent of papers that expressed an opinion of man making global warming.

that's where the 97 percent came form.

66.7 percent studied it and didn't have opinion either way.

not a consensus.

Oh, I know exactly what the statistics mean. When 66.7% of the papers express no opinion on it, it doesn't mean the researchers have no opinion. It means that expressing such an opinion wasn't relevant to the specific topic of the paper in question. For example, a given paper might be about quantifying how much warming is occurring, and have nothing whatsoever to do with its cause. It's a good bet that loads of papers on the topic are exclusively about the observable and expected warming trend, not about its cause.

Climate researchers have been polled. 97% believe in MMGW. That is the proper method for determining whether they believe it or not, to ask them.

Now, please provide a link to where you got your chart from.

 

[master_shake_]

Oh, I know exactly what the statistics mean. When 66.7% of the papers express no opinion on it, it doesn't mean the researchers have no opinion. It means that expressing such an opinion wasn't relevant to the specific topic of the paper in question. For example, a given paper might be about quantifying how much warming is occurring, and have nothing whatsoever to do with its cause. It's a good bet that loads of papers on the topic are exclusively about the observable and expected warming trend, not about its cause.

Climate researchers have been polled. 97% believe in MMGW. That is the proper method for determining whether they believe it or not, to ask them.

Now, please provide a link to where you got your chart from.

]no they haven't been polled.

they are using bogus stats to make it sound like it's 97 percent.

this is a lie.

this is true.

read the fine print.

see the difference.

there is no consensus the 97 percent is 32.7 percent.

not a real markety number.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Now, please provide a link to where you got your chart from.

The only close match on a Google image search was politifake.org. Sounds like the perfect place for deluded bubble dwellers to get their alternative facts.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

How the fuck does Trump get 63 million votes?

That is both the question and the problem.

 

[woolfe9998]

The only close match on a Google image search was politifake.org. Sounds like the perfect place for deluded bubble dwellers to get their alternative facts.

It's obviously a a chart from some crank denial site somewhere which is taking legitimate data and trying to twist it around. \

 

[master_shake_]

It's obviously a a chart from some crank denial site somewhere which is taking legitimate data and trying to twist it around. \

no it is from the linked article you posted.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...c_Global_Warming_in_the_Scientific_Literature

here.

under 3. results.

but you don't agree with it. so it don't count.

 

[woolfe9998]

no it is from the linked article you posted.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...c_Global_Warming_in_the_Scientific_Literature

here.

under 3. results.

but you don't agree with it. so it don't count.

I already linked that where the underlying data came from. I want to know who compiled the chart you embedded in your post. Third time I've asked.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's obviously a a chart from some crank denial site somewhere which is taking legitimate data and trying to twist it around. \

I don't know if politifake.org is a nutter propaganda site or not. It's described elsewhere as a parody site. I didn't spend much time there, just long enough to verify that they have his chart. If it is truly a parody site, Master_shake was doubly duped by folks who were actually mocking him. That would be hilarious.

 

[dphantom]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120





He really really doesn't understand how things work, does he?

Could use a little of that global warming here. Been 10 - 15F below zero for the last 6 days. At least 4 more days of it yet.

 

[master_shake_]

I already linked that site as where the underlying data came from. I want to know who compiled the chart you embedded in your post. Third time I've asked.

i know how i found it i was going to post that chart i found the white one that wasn't flashy so i googled the title.

"abstract ratings for each level of endorsement global warming"

and low and fucking behold someone made a fancy pie chart.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't know if politifake.org is a nutter propaganda site or not. It's described elsewhere as a parody site. I didn't spend much time there, just long enough to verify that they have his chart. If it is truly a parody site, Master_shake was doubly duped by folks who were actually mocking him. That would be hilarious.

I reverse image searched it and found it on wattsupwiththat and some other standard denial sites. I didn't really care which site it came from that much. I just found it amusing that he wouldn't link to it.

 

[master_shake_]

I reverse image searched it and found it on wattsupwiththat and some other standard denial sites. I didn't really care which site it came from that much. I just found it amusing that he wouldn't link to it.

a denier site. lol

did i deny it?

no i pointed out the glaring lie of 97 percent.

its 32.7 percent

but we'll throw out 7930+ papers that don't explicitly name man or anything as a reason for global warming

fuck those scientists.

 

[Younigue]

Bullshit. It's not what your actual source says. Here's is what it actually says:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta



It makes no difference whatsoever how many scientific papers are out there which do not address the topic of global warming. How stupid do you think we are?

Well, as stupid as him I suspect.

 

[Bowfinger]

I reverse image searched it and found it on wattsupwiththat and some other standard denial sites. I didn't really care which site it came from that much. I just found it amusing that he wouldn't link to it.

I've since found that one and others as well with a regular keyword search. With my image search, however, the only exact match was politifake. Odd. Bottom line, I agree there are other sources with the same chart. Sorry to be misleading.

 

[woolfe9998]

a denier site. lol

did i deny it?

no i pointed out the glaring lie of 97 percent.

its 32.7 percent

but we'll throw out 7930+ papers that don't explicitly name man or anything as a reason for global warming

fuck those scientists.

And you have no idea how many of the authors of those 7930 also wrote articles in which they did express an opinion.

Like I said, whether they explicitly named man as a reason or not would depend on whether the topic of what causes it is relevant to the paper. The search terms used were not "anthropogenic" or "man made" but rather "global warming" and "global climate change." Those topics undoubtedly encompass many papers on the topic of quantifying warming based on interpreting temperature data, for which the cause of the warming may not even be relevant. Now that's the third time I've made this point. Deal with it.

 

[Younigue]

a denier site. lol

did i deny it?

no i pointed out the glaring lie of 97 percent.

its 32.7 percent

but we'll throw out 7930+ papers that don't explicitly name man or anything as a reason for global warming

fuck those scientists.

You would rather err on the side of denial than to cheer on the world to take steps to ensure a healthier environment for all? You see, it doesn't matter if you believe in climate change (stupendously stupid moron) BUT you can absolutely believe in clean air, clean water, healthy land just for, you know... shits and giggles OR because it makes sense. If the Climate Issue improves?.. All the better, am I right? I don't actually need an answer if it doesn't align with what I've just said because if it doesn't, you're too stupid to engage with the vast majority of the people who frequent this forum.

 

[master_shake_]

And you have no idea how many of the authors of those 7930 also wrote articles in which they did express an opinion.

Like I said, whether they explicitly named man as a reason or not would depend on whether the topic of what causes it is relevant to the paper. The search terms used were not "anthropogenic" or "man made" but rather "global warming" and "global climate change." Those topics undoubtedly encompass many papers on the topic of quantifying warming based on interpreting temperature data, for which the cause of the warming may not even be relevant. Now that's the third time I've made this point. Deal with it.

i want honesty.

alarm-ism isn't helping.

and i do know because

someone else did the same study.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph...-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

[Younigue]

"Alarm-ism" it's often what it takes to get the fat-asses of their asses.

 

[Paratus]

i want honesty.

alarm-ism isn't helping.

and i do know because

someone else did the same study.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph...-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

Honesty is certainly not something you are providing and is apparently the last thing you want.

Your denial of the consensus rests on an article in the Wall Street Journal a business paper by David R Legate a climate change denier.

Legates is a signer of the Oregon Petition, which stated: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth"

So he’s one of the 0.7% of scientists (of course he’s not a practicing climate scientist) who believes as you do. (You do realize by your own argument that only 0.7% agree with you.)

That 0.7% has absolutely nothing to hang their hats on. No theory to describe the observed evidence. Not even a credible hypothesis.

Stop believing in bullshit and maybe start being just the littlest bit skeptical of your sources.

 

[fskimospy]

a denier site. lol

did i deny it?

no i pointed out the glaring lie of 97 percent.

its 32.7 percent

but we'll throw out 7930+ papers that don't explicitly name man or anything as a reason for global warming

fuck those scientists.

This is illogical. If you include all papers in the denominator, even papers not addressing the question, then you will never have a ‘consensus’ on anything. This is a comically dishonest way to frame the question. For example I bet if you looked at those same papers you would also lack a ‘consensus’ on the existence of gravity.

The idea that non-answers should be considered equivalent to answering ‘no’ is transparently ridiculous and I think in your heart you know this. You’ve been duped by unscrupulous climate change deniers who most certainly know better.

 

[fskimospy]

Imagine applying this nonsense to polling where non-response rates are super high, typically exceeding 90%. I can see the headline tomorrow: ‘Trump Approval Rating at 3%!!’

After all, they called 10,000 people. 9,000 hung up without offering any opinion at all but we have to count them in the denominator anyway. Of the remainder 30% approved of Trump but 300/10,000 is 3% so that’s the accurate way to go. Sorry, Donnie!

 

[Mai72]

You guys hare missing the point.

Trump is 71 years old. By the time sh*t hits the fan he will have passed away. IMO, that's his mentality. To think TODAY TODAY TODAY, and to not care what will transpire in the distant future. He's a selfish guy. TBH, it's the same with mankind. Most of us are selfish. If we truly wanted to make a difference we would had done it by now. We'd walk more. Use less gasoline. By products that are ecofriendly. But, most of us don't. Why? Because we are selfish so we push these things off to the next generation. And, the next. Our attitude is well I'm not going to be here to have to deal with the destruction, and the rise of the sea levels, warming of the planet, etc.