The 3% of Scientific Papers that Deny Climate Change found to be Biased/Faulty

[Sunseeker]

Right, global warming is a world wide hoax perpetuated by the entire world because of the Chinese in order to destroy the US economy and manufactured by the globalist Jews who want a one world government where white people will go extinct in favor of a swarm of job-stealing gender queer Mexicans.

Fucking InfoWars cuck. People like you are why the world is doomed.

That was the funniest thing I've read all morning.

[rogueMatthias]

The whole "97% consensus" is just flawed logic if you're trying to argue something. Go back several hundred years and "97% consensus" on the origin of the species would be that God blinked it all in to existence. Hell, only 87% of US scientists today believe that evolution is happening, and that it's caused by natural and environmental issues - no wonder people are skeptical of the "97%".

In reality, it's just because the number doesn't mean a lot -
Are global temperatures rising - YES. We can see this in data.
Is human behaviour in part responsible - YES. Just by existing in an ecosystem (especially in this large a number) then there's no way we can not have an effect, even if it were tiny. EVERYONE can agree with both of these points.
How big a proportion of this is human behaviour responsible for and what will be future effects? - Now this is the only part that's in any way controversial in this, and the higher the proportion that's given to human behaviour, the more the "consensus" starts to go down a lot. Likewise with the scale of the issue, the more "doomsday" the scenarios are, the more the proportion agreeing nosedives.
Burning fossil fuels, extensive cattle farming or deforestation are all, just by logic alone, going to have an impact on the planet's climate. But also, climate science is a VERY complicated field with a HUGE amount of unknown and little historic data (proportionally). We can barely predict the weather more than a week in advance and the climate is 100 times more complex. This current trend of shutting down anyone skeptical or with doubts is unproductive.

[Caolela]

You aren't making up facts are you? Let me look back and see... nope never quoted anyone. He just happened to post ahead of me. Thumbs up to you alternate facts guy.

Didn't matter if you specifically quoted someone or not, your intent/meaning was clear.

Nice backpedal on the backpedal, instead of owning up that you were wrong and moving on.

[sgthotrod]

Didn't matter if you specifically quoted someone or not, your intent/meaning was clear.

Nice backpedal on the backpedal, instead of owning up that you were wrong and moving on.

Ok dude, everyone besides you actually saw my intent and used a little common sense. And since you seem to be the only one going on about it it makes me wonder who let you wander out of your safe space.

[Deleted]

The only small disagreement is the extent to which it is human caused, the mentioned 3% suggest not at all.

In fact, the often cited 3% argument is specifically about the amount on studies which do not support a climate change caused by human interaction. If I may cite Cook et al. study "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (the authors analyzed about 12k climate abstracts from 1991-2011):

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW [athropgenic climate warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘. . . on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘. . . the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year’ (All`egre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW" (Cook et al. 2013).

[Caolela]

Ok dude, everyone besides you actually saw my intent and used a little common sense. And since you seem to be the only one going on about it it makes me wonder who let you wander out of your safe space.

Yeah, "everyone" in your basement you mean. If you'd stop replying with such inanities, I wouldn't be "going on" about it.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Large enough ash clouds have been shown to reduce global temps. Seems like an easy enough solution.

[Dezerte]

It's disappointing how stubborn we are. But it's more than just beliefs at work here, there's financial motivations for denying climate change and delaying any effort to combat it.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

Large enough ash clouds have been shown to reduce global temps. Seems like an easy enough solution.

That is a really really bad idea. Dropping global temperatures artificially on a global scale at such a dramatic rate would likely be just as catastrophic.

[Endus]

Large enough ash clouds have been shown to reduce global temps. Seems like an easy enough solution.

Ash clouds have a ton of negative side effects.

Reflecting sunlight means it's darker here, which reduces plant growth, which will have an effect on crop yields.
Ash clouds can't reasonably be controlled, so you're talking about a global effect.
Unlike major volcanic eruptions which cause similar issues, you're maintaining this, so the effects aren't temporary, but the new long-term normal.
Ash doesn't stay up. It falls. And causes chemical issues in soils even if it falls lightly enough to not smother things, which it often does, if it's up there in enough quantity.

And so forth. It's a solution that causes more problems than it solves.

[Ragedaug]

No, that's a bullshit piece of propaganda published on wordpress, written by three well-known climate change deniers. Here's a Snopes link debunking the entire damned thing, piece by piece;
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

Here's more on how your links are just blatant propagandic hokum;
http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...er-to-pristine
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...mperature-rise
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.ca/2....html?spref=tw
http://grist.org/article/heres-why-t...andal-is-bunk/

Not even Karl believes the garbage your sources are claiming. Stop blindly believing what propagandists tell you, and try checking the facts first.

I think my favorite part is where you link a bunch of left wing biased sources to debunk the right wing biased source. That'd be like me responding to your links with more Breitbart and Fox News links.

[Endus]

I think my favorite part is where you link a bunch of left wing biased sources to debunk the right wing biased source. That'd be like me responding to your links with more Breitbart and Fox News links.

Sources you disagree with aren't automatically "left wing" just because you don't want to admit the truth. There's nothing biased in those links, and the detail their debunking point by point.

Science isn't partisan. The only side trying to MAKE it partisan is you folks.

[sgthotrod]

Yeah, "everyone" in your basement you mean. If you'd stop replying with such inanities, I wouldn't be "going on" about it.

Lol ok well I'm not playing this game with you anymore. You win. Your right. You are almighty. You are all knowing. Your epeen is bigger. Have a nice day[emoji2]

[Ragedaug]

Sources you disagree with aren't automatically "left wing" just because you don't want to admit the truth. There's nothing biased in those links, and the detail their debunking point by point.

Science isn't partisan. The only side trying to MAKE it partisan is you folks.

Dude, you sound just like everyone throughout history that decried any new Scientific discovery. You think your understanding of Science is perfect and final and you denounce everyone who disagrees with you and your opinion of Science. No one can question any Science anymore. We are done figuring everything out!

Are you really saying that everything we believe today is true and final and will never be proven false? It really sounds like that's what you are saying.

I'm keeping an open mind. My understanding of Science tells me that's the heart of Science. As soon as you believe your understanding is perfect you close your mind off to every new truth that's going to be discovered.

I drive an electric car. I have for years now. I eat organic, and all the breads I eat are from grain that's milled in my house. My produce is grown locally. I would like to get to the point where I'm growing my own grain and other produce, and I regularly look at what's going on with solar and geothermal tech as my end goal would be to use 100% renewable energy.

So you know where I'm coming from. Not that I'm over here trying to virtue signal, but I believe the less impact we all have on our environment, the better we and all the future generations to come will be.

So here's what your Science is leaving out -

- We don't know how much impact the CO2 is having on our current temperature. We seen CO2 levels multiple times higher than it is now with cooler temperatures. The only thing that tells us is that CO2 isn't the only factor in warming and cooling cycles. I'm sure you say you already knew this, but it's never brought up as CO2 is one of the few things we can link to human production, so it's typically the only thing demonized in climate science.
- We don't know how much impact humans are having on the current CO2 levels. CO2 levels rise and fall to much greaters extents without humans than they have with humans. I know human activity increases it, we just don't know how much
- We don't know how the levels of CO2 will impact the environment and planet. All the predictions over the past 15-20 years about what would happen to the worlds temperatures and climate have been shown to be false. So the "Science" that you claim is all knowing has only proven to not be able to predict anything. On top of that we've seen CO2 levels flatten out, but temperatures haven't, so Scientists are continuing to discover every day things they didn't previously calculate, like the capacity of the natural CO2 filters, etc.
- We don't know how much all the suspected regulations that are meant to be levied on business' and governments will impact the climate. So without having any idea of how much change we can count on the climate alarmists are ready to pass many restricting and debilitating regulations that will stifle and kill businesses and technological growth.

I, and I would suspect the vast majority of skeptics, aren't questing the science. What we are questioning is your conclusions and plan of action. Considering all we don't know, I'm very surprised you consider the conclusions you have drawn as indisputable fact. You are right, the Science isn't partisan. But your conclusions based in part on unavailable data most certainly are.

To be a scientist is to be a skeptic. To denounce skepticism is to be a zealot. Now you just need to decide which better describes you.

--------------
Almost forgot to address your first point. The sources you linked are biased towards the left because they only tell part of the story and the part they tell slants to the left. Kinda like Breitbart and Fox News, but instead of telling the biased "right" side of things, they tell the biased "left" side of things. If you think all those sources you linked are fair and balanced and non-partisan, then you have bigger blinders on than I realized.

[Masark]

- We don't know how much impact the CO2 is having on our current temperature. We seen CO2 levels multiple times higher than it is now with cooler temperatures. The only thing that tells us is that CO2 isn't the only factor in warming and cooling cycles. I'm sure you say you already knew this, but it's never brought up as CO2 is one of the few things we can link to human production, so it's typically the only thing demonized in climate science.
- We don't know how much impact humans are having on the current CO2 levels. CO2 levels rise and fall to much greaters extents without humans than they have with humans. I know human activity increases it, we just don't know how much
- We don't know how the levels of CO2 will impact the environment and planet. All the predictions over the past 15-20 years about what would happen to the worlds temperatures and climate have been shown to be false. So the "Science" that you claim is all knowing has only proven to not be able to predict anything. On top of that we've seen CO2 levels flatten out, but temperatures haven't, so Scientists are continuing to discover every day things they didn't previously calculate, like the capacity of the natural CO2 filters, etc.
- We don't know how much all the suspected regulations that are meant to be levied on business' and governments will impact the climate. So without having any idea of how much change we can count on the climate alarmists are ready to pass many restricting and debilitating regulations that will stifle and kill businesses and technological growth.

I, and I would suspect the vast majority of skeptics, aren't questing the science. What we are questioning is your conclusions and plan of action. Considering all we don't know, I'm very surprised you consider the conclusions you have drawn as indisputable fact. You are right, the Science isn't partisan. But your conclusions based in part on unavailable data most certainly are.

To be a scientist is to be a skeptic. To denounce skepticism is to be a zealot. Now you just need to decide which better describes you.

1. Bullshit. We know that CO2 is not the only factor. There's a soup of other greenhouse gasses, such as methane and HCFCs, which we also have measurements for. We also have measurements for the earth's orbital dynamics and the sun's state.

2. More bullshit. We know how much humanity emits, because we measure. We know how much coal we burn, we known how much oil we burn, we know how many cattle there are emitting methane.

3. We have fairly good ideas on what the general effects will be, and its not good. Furthermore, cites your "predictions that have been shown to be false". Ones that were published in peer reviewed literature, not media bullshit. Also, CO2 levels have not flatted out in the slightest. Emissions have flattened out to an extent, but atmospheric levels are still rising.

4. Contrary to your apparent opinion, "We should keep burning coal and oil forever" is not a technologically stimulating policy.

[Endus]

So here's what your Science is leaving out -

- We don't know how much impact the CO2 is having on our current temperature. We seen CO2 levels multiple times higher than it is now with cooler temperatures. The only thing that tells us is that CO2 isn't the only factor in warming and cooling cycles. I'm sure you say you already knew this, but it's never brought up as CO2 is one of the few things we can link to human production, so it's typically the only thing demonized in climate science.

This is all false. We DO know how much impact CO2 emissions are having; that's readily quantifiable. If you're talking about higher CO2 levels with cooler temperatures in paleohistory, not for hundreds of millions of years. And nobody is saying CO2 is the only factor. Methane is a big deal too. Other factors are also quantified. But GHGs are the lion's share, and all factors contributing anything of significance to modern warming are anthropogenic in origin.

The IPCC report details all this.

- We don't know how much impact humans are having on the current CO2 levels. CO2 levels rise and fall to much greaters extents without humans than they have with humans. I know human activity increases it, we just don't know how much

Straight up wrong. We've quantified all of that. And no; CO2 levels have NOT changed this rapidly or severely in our natural past.

- We don't know how the levels of CO2 will impact the environment and planet. All the predictions over the past 15-20 years about what would happen to the worlds temperatures and climate have been shown to be false. So the "Science" that you claim is all knowing has only proven to not be able to predict anything. On top of that we've seen CO2 levels flatten out, but temperatures haven't, so Scientists are continuing to discover every day things they didn't previously calculate, like the capacity of the natural CO2 filters, etc.

Again, all false.
We don't "know" how levels will impact the environment and planet, because scientists cannot literally see the future, and we're outside any prior natural behaviour. But we have solid predictions.
The predictions made have held solid, and warming has been within projected ranges for 50+ years.
CO2 levels are not "flattening out". https://static.secure.website/wscfus...2-ap-12-45.png

- We don't know how much all the suspected regulations that are meant to be levied on business' and governments will impact the climate. So without having any idea of how much change we can count on the climate alarmists are ready to pass many restricting and debilitating regulations that will stifle and kill businesses and technological growth.

Again, you're blaming scientists for not literally being perfect oracles that can literally see the future, to know how all future regulations that do not currently exist will affect outcomes for decades/centuries.

That's just flat-out unreasonable. No, science isn't literally magic. Frankly, duh.

Can astrophysics tell us when, to the day, we'll officially colonize Mars? No? Then astrophysics must be wrong, right? Same fucking non-argument.

I, and I would suspect the vast majority of skeptics, aren't questing the science. What we are questioning is your conclusions and plan of action. Considering all we don't know, I'm very surprised you consider the conclusions you have drawn as indisputable fact. You are right, the Science isn't partisan. But your conclusions based in part on unavailable data most certainly are.

You aren't contesting the conclusions. You are literally making up bullshit, lying about basic known facts, and deliberately misleading people.

Contesting conclusions means you have rational attacks on methodologies that can be peer-reviewed and found to have merit. In which case, publish. Contesting the conclusions without contesting the methodologies is not valid. Following a methodology is what produces that conclusion. If the conclusion is wrong, you can show the methodological flaw. If you can't, you're just whining because you don't like the conclusion; you aren't contesting anything. Nor are you being a skeptic. You're just refusing to believe things without giving them proper consideration. Hence "denier".

[matt4pack]

It's always funny how the people who scream the loudest about climate change usually have the largest carbon footprints. You know the types who think they're so cultured because they travel to exotic places while completely ignoring the carbon footprint of that.

Well unless you're a hippie or amish it's nothing but virtue signaling.

[Ragedaug]

This is all false. We DO know how much impact CO2 emissions are having; that's readily quantifiable. If you're talking about higher CO2 levels with cooler temperatures in paleohistory, not for hundreds of millions of years. And nobody is saying CO2 is the only factor. Methane is a big deal too. Other factors are also quantified. But GHGs are the lion's share, and all factors contributing anything of significance to modern warming are anthropogenic in origin.

The IPCC report details all this.

It's completely not quantifiable. Because it's only one factor and because some of the factors of climate change are causational while others are competly external factors, we have no way to measure how much the climate is impacted by CO2. How can we have cooler temperatures with more CO2 and say we know exactly how much the climate will change based on CO2 levels? How much CO2 is removed by natural filters? How full are the filters? How long does it take the filter to recycle? We don't know. All we can make are educated guesses.

Again, all false.
We don't "know" how levels will impact the environment and planet, because scientists cannot literally see the future, and we're outside any prior natural behaviour. But we have solid predictions.
The predictions made have held solid, and warming has been within projected ranges for 50+ years.
CO2 levels are not "flattening out". https://static.secure.website/wscfus...2-ap-12-45.png

You say all false, then proceed to back my point. /shrug as far as the 2nd part, that's compete BS. 30-40 years ago the climate models had us heading into an Ice Age. 20 years ago the climate models had the temperatures destructively high by 2015 and 2020.

Again, you're blaming scientists for not literally being perfect oracles that can literally see the future, to know how all future regulations that do not currently exist will affect outcomes for decades/centuries.

That's just flat-out unreasonable. No, science isn't literally magic. Frankly, duh.

Can astrophysics tell us when, to the day, we'll officially colonize Mars? No? Then astrophysics must be wrong, right? Same fucking non-argument.

I don't mind that they aren't perfect. I'd settle for "partially right" from time to time. You are throwing up a perfection strawman when I never asked for or expected perfection from Scientific prediction. See if you can find where I expected them to be perfect. Logical fallacies like that are the first sign that you have no rebuttal. For your Mars ETA false equivalency, I would counter that it proves my point. Scientists are smart enough to say "we don't know". What the climate alarmists are doing is the equivalent of saying, "we be on Mars growing food by x date". And if they did that it would show they are foolish. They can say "I think" or "I hope" and I don't have a problem with that, but if they come out and say, "it's a fact, this is when we will be on Mars, now we'll pass legislation that negatively impacts you because of this - and if you disagree with when we'll be on Mars then you are a dirty DENIER!", that when I have a problem.

You aren't contesting the conclusions. You are literally making up bullshit, lying about basic known facts, and deliberately misleading people.

Contesting conclusions means you have rational attacks on methodologies that can be peer-reviewed and found to have merit. In which case, publish. Contesting the conclusions without contesting the methodologies is not valid. Following a methodology is what produces that conclusion. If the conclusion is wrong, you can show the methodological flaw. If you can't, you're just whining because you don't like the conclusion; you aren't contesting anything. Nor are you being a skeptic. You're just refusing to believe things without giving them proper consideration. Hence "denier".

Nothing I've said is made up, and nothing you've said has disproved it. Sure you've said, "YOU ARE WRONG!", but that doesn't do anything to counter what I've said. Also, you've done nothing but deny me, so join the club. You are a denier too. See how that word means nothing when you use it out of context?

[Endus]

It's completely not quantifiable. Because it's only one factor and because some of the factors of climate change are causational while others are competly external factors, we have no way to measure how much the climate is impacted by CO2. How can we have cooler temperatures with more CO2 and say we know exactly how much the climate will change based on CO2 levels? How much CO2 is removed by natural filters? How full are the filters? How long does it take the filter to recycle? We don't know. All we can make are educated guesses.

And you claimed to be a scientist?

We can measure atmospheric CO2. We KNOW how much CO2 is going up. All this stuff has answers. Heck, they're in the IPCC report I linked earlier, which you've clearly never bothered to look at.

as far as the 2nd part, that's compete BS. 30-40 years ago the climate models had us heading into an Ice Age. 20 years ago the climate models had the temperatures destructively high by 2015 and 2020.

Literally none of this is true. It's all garbage.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#3734057c6614

The stuff about ice ages was a what-if question asked by a couple researchers that was never remotely the consensus view. http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do...T.5.8199/full/

Here's each of the 4 past IPCC model projections evaluated against observed warming, circa 2012. They all line up, no "destructively high" values at all; https://www.skepticalscience.com/con...-accurate.html

Nothing you've said is remotely true. You're making this stuff up as you go.

Nothing I've said is made up, and nothing you've said has disproved it. Sure you've said, "YOU ARE WRONG!", but that doesn't do anything to counter what I've said. Also, you've done nothing but deny me, so join the club. You are a denier too. See how that word means nothing when you use it out of context?

I've provided links and sources to debunk every single claim you've made. If you bothered to read them. This isn't even a case where you've said a bunch of things and some of them were false; nearly every single specific claim you have made is wildly incorrect and supported by nothing, and you've never provided any sources to support any of it. Likely because you either can't, or because they're so obviously hokum you know you'll get caught out.

[callipygoustp]

Endus your hand must be sore and fatigued from all the "spankings" you've been handing out in this thread.