because one day it's sunny and the next day it rains, the weather changes all the time

And?

And I know that makes Vlad mad. That's why I said it

So that’s not your reason for being skeptical of the consensus?

no

lol

What are your reasons?

I'll respond to you momentarily

busy atm

Ok.

how do I put quoted shit inside a box?

Take your time googling, lad. Nobody's pressing you.

You do ‘’>

Absolutely not.

Remove the apostrophe

> The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

> A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

> Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

So it’s the people behind the consensus that you disagree with?

I guess the people making that claim, yes. And the methods they used to come to that number

Alright. So what you disagree with is the people and the methods they use to come to that number, is it the actual climate scientists that took party in the survey or the people who made the survey?

that third quote the guy seems, to me anyway, to be using dishonest methods

and the sample sizes don't seem to be very convincing to me

It feels like someone has started with the conclusion and then went after the numbers to justify that conclusion

Okay, so they have used circular reasoning to justify the conclusion?

So, aside from the 97% figure, there is absolutely no evidence in support of climate change in your opinion?

I never said the climate hasn't changed

I'm talking about this consensus number only

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ERL.....8b4024C/abstract

I don't think the questions is "has the climate changed?" I think it's how much affect have humans had on that change, and how disastrous is it exactly (honestly) not in some hyperbolic bullshit Green New Deal way of claiming we have 12 years left

Well, we need to take a look at the meta-analysis survey that Cook made. In the third quote, it says:

“a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer reviewed literature that humans are responsible.”

It is a misconception that humans are responsible: that is what we call enhanced climate change. Climate change is a natural occurring process, the Earth has been through several glacial and interglacial periods.

Yes, I agree with that, but I'm not a climate scientist

We have simply added, because of our use of greenhouse gases.

I can't answer the question of how disastrous is it, and what do we need to do to mitigate it

I am also skeptical of people being honest about what actions we need to take

The Paris Accord seemed like a nonsensical thing to do

So you’re not really sceptical of climate change, nor enhanced climate change. Instead you are skeptical of humans being solely responsible for climate change?

Green New Deal is nonsensical

Are you still skeptical of the 97% figure after reading what Throttles said?

I'm willing to accept that we have had some effect, but I can't quantify it

But you can't quantify it, because you're admittedly not a scientist, yes?