RT @TaroIstok: @136101521a @TheDisproof @JusperMachogu @MatthewWielicki Why would I pay a science illiterate to do science? https://t.co/E…
@136101521a @TheDisproof @JusperMachogu @MatthewWielicki Why would I pay a science illiterate to do science? https://t.co/Ewt7lzFLat 🌡️#ClimateBrawl🥊 https://t.co/jIq33xuZ2B
@lucasbergkamp En wat bij bovenstaande meegenomen dient te worden is ook het volgende. De 97% komt puur uit de papers met een positie in de abstract. "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW" 2/3e van de papers laat geen positie uit ov
@lucasbergkamp Naar mijn weten gaat de "97% consensus" over een statistisch wapenfeit over papers met een opinie/positie (uitgedragen in de abstract) m.b.t. "AGW", geturft door Cook et al. https://t.co/u2eby072fg Voor zover ik weet is een gepubliceerde p
@milbrath_pierre @Luisamneubauer https://t.co/VoOGf4Vusp https://t.co/XJ0zdqm6X7 Die Folgen der Erderwärmung sind überall nachzulesen und bereits sichtbar. 97 Prozent aller wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten zum Klimawandel zwischen 1991 und 2012 stützen die Au
@treefrog2 @UncleChopperRIP @PeterDClack Instead of reading childish blogs. Why don't you try reading the actual paper? https://t.co/mSR6fvsqVD It's a little out of date now as there is a Consensus on the Consensus. https://t.co/enx7DEESVR Dare you, double
@Xr4yTheLegendV2 @Da_Loysl @MrJonasDanner @HerrMustermanno https://t.co/nXfqFssc0K Und hier ein Beispiel für die 97% Konsens! Cook, University of Queensland, wertete 11.944 Artikel 1991-2011 aus zur "Erderwärmung". Nur 3.896 sahen Ursache im "Anthopogenig
@volven @FliegelVaclav @BelzebubF @DanielaKovarova Kdyby vás zajímaly fakt a ne hoaxy- posílám odkaz na studii co analyzuje 12tisíc studií vydaných od 1991-2011. 97% ze zkoumaných studií se shoduje na příčině globálního oteplování. Ale je opravdu roztomilé
@Gretcie @FrancisMinieri @NewstalkFM @paulmurphy_TD @kierancuddihy @TheHardShoulder The non peer reviewed paper relied upon by the media to present a one-sided narrative on climate change, published by Cook et al., shows clearly that 66.4% (a majority) of
@melnicksergio False Consensus! 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97%* https://t.co/dTLqsR2Oys GlobalWarming/ClimetChange N
@Immorta68383222 @ErbVolker @rosenbusch_ @mowe_paul Hier ein bisschen was zu lesen. Hm. https://t.co/2x6FUFzLqF
@8enoit @PatrickDupriez @chris_goethals @MR_officiel @Elpis_R Pas du tout. Le consensus scientifique exprimé dans des articles revus par des pairs, dépasse les 97 %. https://t.co/VsrwvjE4OR https://t.co/ISfrtZYweo
@DavidInky @MatthewWielicki https://t.co/KRvIFLDqUe 3 minutes on Google.
@DavidAHoward @TafPomScotiPole @mumf14 Anyone who wants to read the study can do so via this link. I've not properly looked at the 2021 study yet but it was produced by a computer programmer using an algorithm, that should immediately set alarm bells off.
"66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW," so 2/3rds of scientists did not have an opinion on humans affecting global warming...call that a majority or scientific consensus??? MY ARSE!!! https://t.co/QsDPJHHnh9
@powermaennchen @Muselbernd1 @carla_hinrichs_ @hartaberfair @AufstandLastGen @AimeevanBaalen Alleine hier werden 12.000 Paper analyisiert: https://t.co/IKIcKeyNAZ
@philerator @mehdirhasan I imagine you're familiar with probably the best-known such paper. https://t.co/NVwDJFmQa6
@SocDoneLeft @jordanbpeterson Science is not experts opinion u know that right Jordan? Also i hear u love hierarchys here is the hierarchy of evidence https://t.co/3fvSykDXbs https://t.co/2Q1SCo1QZv
@lukester588 @RobertVelhagen @PeterDClack @equiteinvest You mean this one? https://t.co/Nmq2HfFw87
@SusanMcLaren7 @ElliotIkilei @kingisnelgar 1) https://t.co/pVfiCGAMLj Actually, the Cook , et al, paper published in 2011 stated that they examined 11944 peer-reviewed climate ABSTRACTS from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global
@adrianmahon8 @GBNEWS Have a look at the citations in that link. The authors looked at abstracts only (not the papers themselves) for 11k papers. Only 30% were proponents of anthropogenic global warming. https://t.co/nJzayFJBCZ
@cjchristian00 @MikeHudema "It wasn't even the warmest summer of the last 10 years" lol ok bud, didn't I just say 'unless you dishonestly crop the timeline'? I didn't know you were taking requests, do flat earth next? Also no citation, still https://t.co
@jakeshieldsajj @dymaedh Sure you did champ https://t.co/fAfUtjSO8O
@ElijahSchaffer She really scares you denialists, which is hugely satisfying. Have you ever considered learning some science, or is ill-educated moron more your thing? https://t.co/PPMdVz8WXI
@BBeurling @Fredgoodbar @tan123 Looks like you need to brush up a lot of stuff Buzz!! https://t.co/8Q5CQkwia6
@mbroadway @nytimes Ckeck the bibliography https://t.co/5hp5PPi5ds
@obaewan_kenobae @_david_ho_ @GeoffreySupran @rahmstorf @NaomiOreskes @AOC Have you read the evidence provided by the NASA Propaganda arm? I would suggest not. If you had you would have seen the meme below. By using this link on the reference "you provid
@davestewart3 @10mm_404 @jasef666 @BrianGitt https://t.co/hzi2IpDZuk Well here's a report which summarises the scientific consensus. I'll let you decide if that is "factual" enough
@dc_flake When you exclude the ones that didn't mention the cause of global warming in its abstract. https://t.co/b7IHbctvjZ https://t.co/ALTUJY9ZUv
@risktoolbox No, that's wrong. Read the study, especially under "methods". And if you do so, just continue. There are more studies agreeing, e.g. https://t.co/0H1BRuGfdR https://t.co/M0ohZ6SnWz And guess what? Not one study disagrees. #GetYourFactsRight
@Stem2022V @AlexEpstein @PeterMcCormack Not at all. Read this paper, thoroughly. https://t.co/LpdkTwxrxr
@Laurie9203 @4ri4n85 @jordanbpeterson 97%. It took me literally 30 sec to find it. https://t.co/kWH52uR15G
@MatthewJBar @LinchZhang @daniel_eth I was curious so I checked, it was based on an assessment of papers expressing a position on AGW. A supporting survey sent to the authors of the papers looked at had a 14% response rate. https://t.co/Ydeshxn0rs https://
@MichaelIaconel1 @SEpatov @teymoornabili @SagCat1985 @elonmusk @mysteriouskat Science is not an election. And even if it were there is no basis for the 97% statistic that is easily debunked. Would u like to discuss the most cited paper claiming 97%. https:
@GeoeWatchDebunk @JunkScience Check for yourself. I gave the link. Here it is again, with the relevant screenshots: https://t.co/wfEYHufaq6 Lynas used the exact same categories. Only category 1 is quantified, which means the paper said AGW>half the wa
@ejwwest @jordanbpeterson 6) also not disputed. Previously IPCC, with high confidence, claimed climate change has no effect on natural disasters. This changed in their recent report as a scare tactic to increase influence 7) not political just true… http
@MrMatthewTodd @Airbare40 Those are cherry picked statistics. You're ★★trying★★ to argue with someone who knows far more about the topic than you. This is the same website that's used for the “scientific consensus”, this file has the data they used. https
@DieselTechRick @jordanbpeterson Human contribution to climate change is a matter of 10th grade chemistry my friend. The matter "not being settled" is a lie propagated by the fossil industry and its clowns. https://t.co/TxYIn7nsYA
@AndrewRoseSC It's a False Consensus! NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0J2ej 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.
RT @PalibRuce: @StanVoWales VS False Consensus! "none of the papers disagreed" 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimme…
@IanCrossland Merry Christmas and Sturnalia? False Consensus! NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0J2ej 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013 Cook 3.
@StanVoWales VS False Consensus! "none of the papers disagreed" 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013 Cook 3896/4014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsR2Oys
@CarKettner @jcw_karlsruhe @HinnKarlheinz Weil darin keinerlei Belege zu finden sind und diese Aussagen der 800 Wissenschaftler #fakenews sind oder haben sie die Quellen? Solange biete ich das hier an: https://t.co/5IOJzn0fID
@jcw_karlsruhe Und das war auch schon 2013 klar: https://t.co/5IOJzmZHT5
@CattyCumin @altcoinpowa @mor10 @flaicaster @AlexEpstein @OpenAI @sama You're either saying it's not peer reviewed if I have no counters, or that the document has the same ID and reviews that articles I linked? 🤔 That makes no sense and sounds like a loade
@elonmusk @stillgray "They" can lie with statistics, False Consensus! NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0J2ej 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013
@michaelmalice You can do better Michael Its a False Consensus! 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcWsOF 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2pMSK 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsR2O
@MatthewWielicki That 10 year old study literally says that 97% of scientists who expressed an opinion agreed with AGW. https://t.co/vgVDnMwk0V
@PvtMcAuslan @MatthewWielicki I am. Because you don’t know anything about the topic. Would like other books and peer reviewed links for your education? https://t.co/bbu8ht158g
@Sirus1234 @Kusi_BE_CH Woher nehmen sie diese Zahlen? Sie ähneln den Zahlen in dieser Auswertung aus dem Jahr 2013. https://t.co/DbXjCnCrD4 1/
@mcdanish99 @merrionstreet @MetEireann What consensus? One of only two studies on the supposed consensus was total bunk where the majority of the scientists failed to even engage and of the majority remaining no position was offered as to the premise of g
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
@UrsulaKiener Es un Falso Consenso! 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsR2Oys NASA 97%=97% https://t.c
@thevivafrei You are a good reader @thevivafrei? 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsR2Oys NASA 97%=97%
@ClaytonMorris @DrAseemMalhotra @TheRedactedInc False Consensus! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0rqPJ 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https:
@ClaytonMorris False Consensus! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0JA3R 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcX0Ed 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2qkIi 2013 Cook 3.896
@FilmFlic @motoxjoel @DomDonald14 @KarlvanBeek @FlyAirNZ Re this paper. https://t.co/lHAGd5rNNw They put people who agree into three different bins 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers 23% that explicitly endorse global warming withou
@MattWalshBlog False Consensus Forcing democracy in a REPUBLIC! NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0rqPJ 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua 2013 Cook
@DineshDSouza @AOC False Consensus! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0JA3R 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcX0Ed 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2qkIi 2013 Cook 3
@RepThomasMassie False Consensus? GlobalWarming/ClimetChange 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua 2013 Cook 3.896/4.014=97% https://t.co/dTLqsR2Oys
@elonmusk @TomFitton False Consensus! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0rqPJ 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 100-3%=97% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua 2013 C
@QBJuan1776 @Oudwood99 @SteveH103 @MikeHudema I especially like the goofy big blue arrow and unidentified powerpoint slide. Here's a meta analysis of ≈54,000 peer-reviewed articles with >99% consensus https://t.co/tc6VgqFEGC Or this classic meta analys
@TPSpencer88 @BW19324708 @podonovan @EirGrid The 97% of climate scientists agree consensus is totally bogus. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can see through it all too easily: https://t.co/Ttxrtah3xj https://t.co/Q0Ge4RFNGe
@GBNEWS For anyone interested in the climate paper @thecoastguy mentioned, it’s here: https://t.co/eyLog1vmWe. I’m sure there will be other sources, but it’s been buried fairly well. Google “cook eat al, 2013 AGW” if need be.
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
@hazechu @Protectbypaint
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
@macseas @IrishTimes The consensus is a total fabrication. Cook's 2013 "97% of scientists" effort to fabricate a phoney consensus doesn't contain the phrase "97% of scientists” anywhere in his non peer reviewed paper. https://t.co/ZAtiWDbKL8
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chicanery and statistical manipulation, I knew that something was seriously amiss. You can read the study yourself here: https://t.co
RT @K4Climate: I'm going to test this gentleman's bona fides. Here is Cook's letter: https://t.co/qLkg80upDM Please ask Mr. Cook to expla…
@JacquesBrisant @MikeHudema AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming Please do not spread misinformation. https://t.co/NgbLrCJSzf
@k_alexanderman @philerator @phlannelphysics @bleasdale_r @TheELongWave @GeraldKutney @TonyClimate Definitely not wikipedia - 'Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the publishe
@IlemobolaT @elonmusk @getpaidwrite Not me, 97.2% of the scientific community. You can read the study here: https://t.co/yCMsZ87TMw
@GuntramPross @ningelschuh @Panfloeterle @PeterPark1983 @Ricarda_Lang Wenn ich den aktuellen Thread richtig verstanden habe, ging es um die Zustimmung der Wissenschaft auf den menschengemachten Klimawandel. In der Studie von 2013 gab es in der Klimawissens
@mkaiser75 @jaroslav_pors @adamzabransky „Počet prací, které odmítají antropogenní globální oteplování, tvoří nepatrný podíl publikovaných výzkumů a v průběhu času se jejich podíl mírně snižuje. … Převažující procento (97 %) podporuje vědecký konsenzus o a
@JanKalal @MartinJonas19 @CNNPrima „Počet prací, které odmítají antropogenní globální oteplování, tvoří nepatrný podíl publikovaných výzkumů a v průběhu času se jejich podíl mírně snižuje. … Převažující procento (97 %) podporuje vědecký konsenzus o antropo
„Situaci ještě zhoršuje mediální zpracování klimatické problematiky, kdy normativní praxe věnovat opačným stranám stejnou pozornost umožnila hlasité menšině, aby své názory posílila (Boykoff a Boykoff 2004).“ https://t.co/Mc9Ra8tqLW prostřednictvím @IOPsci
@JanKalal @MartinJonas19 @CNNPrima „Situaci ještě zhoršuje mediální zpracování klimatické problematiky, kdy normativní praxe věnovat opačným stranám stejnou pozornost umožnila hlasité menšině, aby své názory posílila (Boykoff a Boykoff 2004).“ https://t.co
@libtardzeu @MartinJonas19 @CNNPrima „Situaci ještě zhoršuje mediální zpracování klimatické problematiky, kdy normativní praxe věnovat opačným stranám stejnou pozornost umožnila hlasité menšině, aby své názory posílila (Boykoff a Boykoff 2004).“ https://t.
@PedroKompi @MartinJonas19 @CNNPrima @CNN „Situaci ještě zhoršuje mediální zpracování klimatické problematiky, kdy normativní praxe věnovat opačným stranám stejnou pozornost umožnila hlasité menšině, aby své názory posílila (Boykoff a Boykoff 2004).“ https
@gmichalova1 @klimatolog „Situaci ještě zhoršuje mediální zpracování klimatické problematiky, kdy normativní praxe věnovat opačným stranám stejnou pozornost umožnila hlasité menšině, aby své názory posílila (Boykoff a Boykoff 2004).“ https://t.co/Mc9Ra8tqL
@lasee_frank @cmcateer3 You should be able to Google the paper and find it. This link should work. https://t.co/wN5JV5We5x
@mcraul55 @IdiazAyuso Te aporto un estudio que recopila investigaciones realizadas durante 20 años donde se revela que el 97% de los científicos comparten la existencia de un calentamiento global antropogénico. Considero más relevante la opinión del 97% de
RT @tmorrisuk: @Dominiquetaegon @LozzaFox NetZero and the Orwellian Great Reset are predicated on false claim 97% of scientists agreed glob…
RT @bobbrand_nl: @theo_vankempen Zie de originele studie: https://t.co/lHGiEmTtno Let wel op: dit betreft tellingen van de wetenschappelij…
@theo_vankempen Zie de originele studie: https://t.co/lHGiEmTtno Let wel op: dit betreft tellingen van de wetenschappelijke PUBLICATIES, niet aantallen klimaatonderzoekers. Die laatste zijn er ook, zie bijv. de enquete die hier besproken is: https://t.co
RT @klimaatVeranda: @GreenOlivine @theo_vankempen Of begin bij het originele onderzoek: https://t.co/w2F07oKcDj. De supplementary data beva…
@GreenOlivine @theo_vankempen Of begin bij het originele onderzoek: https://t.co/w2F07oKcDj. De supplementary data bevat een txt-bestand met alle artikelen, inclusief auteursnamen, die zijn meegenomen in het onderzoek. -HC