Cold cold cold

[VectraMan]

4 months. But I'll have it done by lunch.

Hours instead of days, Jim.

[hyperD]

[DimPrawn]

97% of govt sponsored science stating that the planet is warming and is caused by humans agree that the planet is warming and is caused by humans.

Stunning statistical "fact" that.

Even by sasguru's standards.

[EternalOptimist]

The paper actually says that 97% agree that anthropogenic global warming is caused by mankind.

I am 100% sure that any anthropogenic global waming is caused by mankind.

eejits

[d000hg]

The title also says that 97% of people who expressed a view on anthropogenic global warming agreed global warming was happening in the first place. So they left out all the people who expressed a view on the other kind, who probably also think it's happening.

[pjclarke]

The paper actually says that 97% agree that anthropogenic global warming is caused by mankind.

From which I can deduce that you have not read it and prefer to get your 'science' from the classically-trainer Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Benchley, writing on gosh - a blog.

The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ | Watts Up With That?

If there ever was an 'eejit', it's Monckton. Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet | Climate Asylum

[BlasterBates]

The best argument about what´s happening to the climate, is...

"look out the f****ing window".

CairnGorm Mountain Webcams // Winterhighland Webcams Scottish Ski Club Hut and Ptarmigan Bowl // Winterhighland

Snow practically all the year round in the cairngorms.

[pjclarke]

The title also says that 97% of people who expressed a view on anthropogenic global warming agreed global warming was happening in the first place. So they left out all the people who expressed a view on the other kind, who probably also think it's happening.

The paper is free, it takes about 10-15 minutes to read. Call me old-fashioned, but reading a piece before you trash it seems to me a more sensible sequence than the opposite, and reduces the risk of making oneself look like a prejudiced numpty.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm a bit busy at the moment, putting my gloves and scarf on

[BlasterBates]

The paper is free, it takes about 10-15 minutes to read. Call me old-fashioned, but reading a piece before you trash it seems to me a more sensible sequence than the opposite, and reduces the risk of making oneself look like a prejudiced numpty.

I think potentially this could be an interesting exercise but it does look like the authors incorrectly classified the papers.

The 97% consensus paper is starting to fall apart | Watts Up With That?

As it stands it´s worthless at the moment. It will have to be redone.

I mean if the scientist who wrote his paper disagrees with the authors that´s pretty much a fail isnt it.