Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
99.4 is the latest........it's gone up!!!
Oh cool. I'll just take your word for it. That's how science works after all and we all know how much the left loves science 
I posted the study......I didn't DO the study.......so you don't have to take my word for it.
And as for the Left loving science? well look at all the Climate change deniers. Are they Left or Right? What about conservation ideas in general. The Left dominates. Don't see too many Right wing conservatives involved in it. What about gender theory? the right is still insisting there are 2 genders.....yeah nah.
Face it mate, Conservatives have become a haven for grumpy deadbeat know it alls that think their experiences and knowledge trump science.
Have you even seen the 1990 v 2001 ipcc climate graphs.Looks to me like someone got a stern talking to after their first report.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Here you go
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax
Seems like the douchebag Cook was right on the money
Ooh, doubling-down on the cherry-picked headlines and bad science.
Do you not understand what I'm talking about or do you just not care about the actual science so long as the fable is backing up your narrative?
Nuccitelli was co-author with Cook on at least the original "paper" claiming 97% consensus based on their aggregation of results.
Y'know, the one that had a bunch of authors of the papers they "sampled" write and say things like "that isn't what I said in my paper" or "you're misrepresenting my results".
I'm sure you know all this, I'm sure you don't take these headlines at face value. Surely not.
And because of how much you seem to love The Guardian, here's another article casting doubt on Cook et al's (that includes Dana Nuccitelli) method: www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
And here's why the 97% and Cook et al are bad science: www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
Science is a method, not a result. There have been times in history when all scientists agreed on the science and they were all wrong. Plate tectonics is ironically one such example.
The science on AGW is clear -- mankind is changing the climate. The arguments now are about how much.
So this reductionist protectionism is unnecessary ... unless you have to protect your ideological narrative because your scientific method is so bad. Can you say "dogma" children?
In other words, you're spinning **** to drive the narrative because you don't care about the actual science.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
I posted the study......I didn't DO the study.......so you don't have to take my word for it.
And as for the Left loving science? well look at all the Climate change deniers. Are they Left or Right? What about conservation ideas in general. The Left dominates. Don't see too many Right wing conservatives involved in it. What about gender theory? the right is still insisting there are 2 genders.....yeah nah.
Face it mate, Conservatives have become a haven for grumpy deadbeat know it alls that think their experiences and knowledge trump science.
... you didn't actually even look at "the study" did you? Your confirmation bias just latched onto it and now has it in death grip like a teenage boy and his first Penthouse.
Theodore Roosevelt, who pretty much started conservation movement in the US, was ... a Republican. Look it up.
"the right" ... the whole of "the right" insist there are 2 genders.
What, every single person on "the right"?
Are you sure? I mean, are you absolutely certain?
Are you sure that they are so uniform in their beliefs?
I mean, even the neo-Nazi groups in the US don't agree on things like immigration ... so how can you make such sweeping generalizations about "the right"?
Ohh yeah, you're strawmanning. Again. The second favorite thing "the left" loves to do, next to pushing feels over facts.
I couldn't care if Mao, Stalin and Bernie Sanders did the science -- so long as they did it properly.
Stop pushing bad science.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Oh, and, Is there really "2 sides"?
With regards to the 97%, there are MORE than 2 sides ... the problem is that like Cook, people with a narrative to push, have reduced it to two sides. They've lumped such data as "man is the main cause" in with "man is a cause" and magicked the 97% out of much lower figures, as well as taking implication as endorsement and ignoring papers that took no position: judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/
Read his own paper. It's right there.
Don't do bad science. Not even once.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
"man is a cause" is the only variable that we can influence
Not necessarily. But it's a good place to start.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
Theodore Roosevelt, who pretty much started conservation movement in the US, was ... a Republican. Look it up.
Just a quibble; TR was a Republican of the old school. The GOP and Dems swapped some principles and changed dramatically in the 60s. TD had more in common with the current Dems than the current GOP vis a vis conservation and civil rights.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
Oh, and, Is there really "2 sides"?
With regards to the 97%, there are MORE than 2 sides ... the problem is that like Cook, people with a narrative to push, have reduced it to two sides. They've lumped such data as "man is the main cause" in with "man is a cause" and magicked the 97% out of much lower figures, as well as taking implication as endorsement and ignoring papers that took no position: judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/
Read his own paper. It's right there.
Don't do bad science. Not even once.
Judith curry..... haha! I know what you are. You're a denier from years back who's now trying to save face but still thinks people like Curry are credible.
this is brilliant we now get to see a climate denier trying to climb down with out getting splinters up his arse.
This is the sort of thing I could write a new telly show on.
Mark Windows talks about the history of Climate Change on the Richie Allen show. He talks about the origins starting with the Brundtland report in 1987 after it was decided that the old world system was not working and was to be replaced by the 4th World.
Interview starts at thirty minutes in:
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
Just a quibble; TR was a Republican of the old school. The GOP and Dems swapped some principles and changed dramatically in the 60s. TD had more in common with the current Dems than the current GOP vis a vis conservation and civil rights.
Right. He was even more progressive than the rest of the GOP ... but compared to today, he's still pretty conservative.
log jam would have you believe that knowing one item about a person's beliefs informs you of the rest of their opinions.
Prejudice is okay when you're a progressive "liberal" 
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Judith curry..... haha! I know what you are. You're a denier from years back who's now trying to save face but still thinks people like Curry are credible.
this is brilliant we now get to see a climate denier trying to climb down with out getting splinters up his arse.
This is the sort of thing I could write a new telly show on.
Proving my point again and again.
"The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative.
That link wasn't about climate change or whatever, it was specifically about the bad science Cook et al produced. Again for the slow reader -- not about climate change itself, about the bad science Cook got up to.
www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
I've made my position on AGW pretty clear, and you're 100% wrong. Again. What a shock. But don't let that stand in the way of your strawmanning.
You're so engaged in the ideology you simply can't allow any challenge to the dogma. Nothing new there, "the left" has had this problem forever.
BTW Curry has written two books and published 150 papers on climate change. Just wondering where I can read yours, log jam? I mean, you're obviously in a position of intellectual and educational superiority with the research to back up your dismissal of people like Curry?
...this science stuff is all a bit beyond you, isn't it?
So what you're saying is by deleting past climactic events is not trying to persuade a narative.
Select to expand quotelog man said.
mate no one cares about cook and 90 percent or whatever.......it's only deniers trying to poke a tiny hole in the gw thing.
Denier, yes, denier......what else would you call someone that calls GW "a religion"...... cites Curry, a champion of the deniers......argues about whether or not there's consensus.
Mate they do, you'd know that if you'd read what Cook wrote about his reason for publishing the paper. And you keep bringing it up as proof of ... something.
It's not poking holes in AGW, it's poking holes in a poorly done study.
No, I called your treatment of AGW a religion -- you treat the "science" like dogma that can't be challenged. You have your infallible prophets and your heretics who dare question them.
That's NOT science.
You're exactly the problem "the left" has today -- a mirror image of the idiots on "the right".
I only had one point, it was a simple point, and you have proven it again and again for me. Thanks!
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said.
mate no one cares about cook and 90 percent or whatever.......it's only deniers trying to poke a tiny hole in the gw thing.
Denier, yes, denier......what else would you call someone that calls GW "a religion"...... cites Curry, a champion of the deniers......argues about whether or not there's consensus.
No, I called your treatment of AGW a religion -- you treat the "science" like dogma that can't be challenged. You have your infallible prophets and your heretics who dare question them.
That's NOT science.
Ok, let's not call it science then........lets call it the worst bit of science eva
Does that mean we agree on the thousands of other papers, written by actual climate scientists that conclude that the science is very strong and reliable.
Why would this 99.9 guy get your attention?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
No, I called your treatment of AGW a religion -- you treat the "science" like dogma that can't be challenged. You have your infallible prophets and your heretics who dare question them.
Thought the science was pretty compelling now eg climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Select to expand quotelog man said.
Why would this 99.9 guy get your attention?
Because you said you were all about the science, unlike "the right" who are morons and will believe anything.
I said "the left" only cares about the science when it supports their narrative.
I introduced the Cook paper, because it's a great, simple example of bad science being presented as pure fact to support the narrative.
The result was predictable, and proved my point.
Got it now? It's not about AGW or climate change.
Select to expand quotehilly said..
Thought the science was pretty compelling now eg climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That's correct. But it's not the point here and that is not what the Cook paper was about.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Nasa +Un=97%
This is partially what this whole thing is about -- what is the consensus actually about?
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (notice they also list Cook's papers as references)
Look at the statements -- actually read them and notice the phrasing they use to describe the extent to which mankind is affecting it.They all agree that man is contributing to climate change, but none of them actually agree on the degree of impact we're having.
Which is the problem with the Cook paper and its presentation to the public: misrepresenting the details with a reductionist headline.
And it just begs the question: what's going on with the 3%? That's like 360 studies that produced a different answer...
I thought Big Oil had more money...
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
And it just begs the question: what's going on with the 3%? That's like 360 studies that produced a different answer...
I thought Big Oil had more money...
I don't think oil companies care as they know they will be needed for every last drop.
.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said.
Why would this 99.9 guy get your attention?
Because you said you were all about the science, unlike "the right" who are morons and will believe anything.
I said "the left" only cares about the science when it supports their narrative.
I introduced the Cook paper, because it's a great, simple example of bad science being presented as pure fact to support the narrative.
The result was predictable, and proved my point.
Got it now? It's not about AGW or climate change.
so you're all hung up about the 99 percent thing. why hang your hat on that. It seems incredibly strange to say. "yes i agree that human induced climate change is real and happening and we need to do something about it ........but im outraged about whether 97 percent of a poll of scientists is accurate".........It's like saying You agree with the IPCC report but you're totally appalled by the font they used in the report.
