Comments on: Climate-Contrarian Research: Rebutted by Peer Review, Soaked Up by MSM https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/ Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:32:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480666 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:32:52 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480666 In reply to Paul Vincelli.

The 3% does not consist of 100% denial, just imperfect consensus. Also, it is 97% of papers, not people, and of papers over a good number of years, and the trend is that the “3%” papers peter out over time.

]]> By: Paul Vincelli https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480665 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:55:39 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480665 It is wishful thinking that 97% of climate science experts accept the fundamentals of global warming. It is more like 99.5% (or maybe even higher). I went to the American Geophysical Union in 2012, and I found that climate change denial is almost impossible to find.

]]> By: Christopher Winter https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480664 Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:53:30 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480664 Indeed, Rob. And there’s the stunning intellectual brilliance of reposting the identical message under two randomly chosen identifiers.

]]> By: corrector https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480663 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:19:02 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480663 In reply to rob.

“97% consensus” is a tiny minority.

Moron.

]]> By: rob https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480662 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:03:05 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480662 I am swayed by the elegant way corrector argues against AGW by writing “now shut the hell up.” I will have to re-evaluate my position on the topic. after all, 97% consensus isn’t 100% consensus.

]]> By: xxx https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480661 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:34:21 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480661 I hate frauds, hoaxers, con artists.

I really do.

]]> By: corrector https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480660 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:33:46 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480660 I hate frauds, hoaxers, con artists.

I really do.

]]> By: Richard Chapman https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480659 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:46 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480659 I’m sure corrector is totally happy with his life of hate. He can can count on more to hate as the months and years wear on.

]]> By: Matt Whealton https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480658 Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:54:31 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480658 Greg, thank you for the post, and for the object lesson provided by your forbearance in not eliminating the ‘comments by the crazies’. Those comments add weight to the conclusions of the article and your post. They certainly can only be judged as of ‘lower expertise and prestige’ than the sorts of comments informed people would write.

]]> By: xxx https://gregladen.com/blog/2014/06/07/climate-contrarian-research-rebutted-by-peer-review-soaked-up-by-msm/#comment-480657 Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:51:57 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=19675#comment-480657 Real scientist are laughing at you.

Buffouns.

]]>