Quote from: Saltzman Alaric on November 20, 2014, 04:06:45 PM

.....

Also, as far as global warming goes, 97% of all journal articles that are peer reviewed agree that there is indeed global warming.

The debate in these journals is not weather the Earth is warming, all reasonable scientist believe that. The debate is whether it is fast or slow and human caused or nature caused. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I guess our new acquaintance Salzman has fled, but just wanted to note that is proof of "all reasonable scientists" above bolded....

...is by his error a list of over 1350 published peer review articles supporting global warming skepticism....

LOL...

BUT SINCE Salzman uses PopularTechnology.net as his reference, let us use HIS PREFERRED SOURCE to look at the 97% claim.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

They went and talked to the scientists who were alleged to "support the hypothesis."

What did they find?

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmospheres seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper.

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 19002000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation.

Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,

Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"

For those who do not know these names Tol, Shaviv, Idso, Scaffeta (and many others) these are stand up guys.