World Leaders Duped by Manipulated Global Warming Data

[1bad65]

I don't know the sample size. Do you have a link with the sample size?

That's your job. You cited the 97% figure, so you need to back it up by providing the sample size.

You can't can you?

Which just proves all you did was mindlessly parrot a DNC talking point.

Maybe next time do some independent research on your end before posting.....

[siablo14]

So what they pointed out is a lie, then?

Mostly likely. You said you agree with the scientists. So all those claims against climate change that Koch Brothers and Exxon were trying to downplay back then are true.

[siablo14]

That's your job. You cited the 97% figure, so you need to back it up by providing the sample size.

You can't can you?

Which just proves all you did was mindlessly parrot a DNC talking point.

Maybe next time do some independent research on your end before posting.....

I see. Do you have a link contradicting the claim. Not a link that says it is a lie but a link that contradict those claims of 97% of scientist agreeing to climate change being accelerated by human activities.


Do you have a link that states that it is less than 97%?

[ShoulderRoll]

Mostly likely. You said you agree with the scientists. So all those claims against climate change that Koch Brothers and Exxon were trying to downplay back then are true.

Put aside the climate change part of this for just a moment.

Do you think the report is lying about the pull that the Rockefellers have with Columbia University, certain journalists, etc?

[jaded]

What would be the motivations of a global warming hoax?

Carbon tax scam

[siablo14]

Put aside the climate change part of this for just a moment.

Do you think the report is lying about the pull that the Rockefellers have with Columbia University, certain journalists, etc?

No. Rich folks have pull with whoever they finance.

[ShoulderRoll]

No. Rich folks have pull with whoever they finance.

Fair enough.

They've been doing this for decades, too. There's an interview on YouTube with Norman Dodd. He was the chief investigator for the Reece Commision, in charge of investigating foundations and NGOs back in the time of the Communist witch hunts.

It's eye opening what he discovered and the extent of their influence and control of US society.

[1bad65]

I see. Do you have a link contradicting the claim.

You're not keeping up, again.

I contradicted nothing. I never challenged the 97% figure, but simply asked for the sample size used to arrive at it.

Telling you can't provide it.

Just be honest. You copied-and-pasted a talking point and when asked specifics you don't know them and thus cant cite them.

Quit playing games and be honest here. That, or simply cite the sample size for the figure YOU presented....

[BoxingPugilist]

You're not keeping up, again.

I contradicted nothing. I never challenged the 97% figure, but simply asked for the sample size used to arrive at it.

Telling you can't provide it.

Just be honest. You copied-and-pasted a talking point and when asked specifics you don't know them and thus cant cite them.

Quit playing games and be honest here. That, or simply cite the sample size for the figure YOU presented....

I don't want to get in the middle of this, and I feel like I should be upfront an honest in saying I believe human HAVE impacted climate change - if by sheer virtue of of population and extreme alteration of landscapes to fit our needs (deforestation for cattle raising, home steading/city development, pollution of waterways, etc.). Having said that, I speak with no environmentally scientific basis other than the handful of stories or articles I've read that seem to substantiate this claim. Although I do make room that it is possible that the need to create the appearance of danger to sustain and grow the field of environmentally conscious research could influence humans to extort facts to continue to provide them with grants, or even entire careers. However I feel the volume of people who back climate change as being heavily influenced by man makes it hard to argue against.

Never the less, you requested knowledge of sample size for the magical "97%" claim, so here you are:

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/...limate-concern

From: Harris Interactive survey
Sample size: 489
Findings: 97% agree global temperatures have risen, 74% agree it is heavily influenced by humans

There are also numerous scientific publications who have published the commonly held belief that "most scientists agree."

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten.../1686.full.pdf

From: Studied carried out by Naomi Oreskes
Sample size: 928 scientific research papers
Findings: 75% of papers either supported or examined the impact of man made climate change, 25% examined the methods used to conduct such research, 0 out of the 928 studies researched contradicted the claim of human influence. So that's a 100% support ratio - assuming the selection by Naomi Oreskes wasn't cherry picked...(some have understandably faulted their method of selection)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...30002/abstract

From: Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman published in the peer reviewed Eos Journal
Sample size: 77 replies specifically relating to human influence of climate change
Findings: 75 (out of 77) replied they believed humans made significant impacts, so 97.4%

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

From: William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold, & Stephen Schneider published in Proceedings of National Academy of Science
Sample size: 1,372 climate researchers
Findings: 97% of the published data from the 1,372 supported the idea of anthropogenic climate change (or ACC).

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../2/024024/meta

From: The Institute of Science - Environmental Research Letters
Sample size: 11,944 abstracts that had been published from 1991-2001 with usage of the words "climate change" or "global warming"
Findings: 66.4% expressed no viewpoint on human influence, 32.6% supported human influence, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were unsure. So of the 33.6% (4,013) of papers that spoke directly to topic of if human influence global warming or not, 97% supported human causes.

------

Again, I'm not saying definitively that humans are responsible for climate change (although I do personally believe we are) - I'm just providing you with the requested sample sizes, and sources of the claims that "97% of scientists agree." Within the scientific community, there is a consensus...and it does seem that the magic number of 97% does come up repeatedly.

[1bad65]

So of the 33.6% (4,013) of papers that spoke directly to topic of if human influence global warming or not, 97% supported human causes.

Correct.

And thanks for proving the 97% talking point is not accurate, since we know its at best only 33% of the 97%. So that's less than 1/3 who actually answered the survey.

Props to you for getting it correct!