Accountability Now

So you agree that the job is legitimate but consider it an insult at the same time. Does your hypocrisy have no ends. I made an assessment about your situation based on past posts you've made. In my assessment I clearly stated is that it was my opinion and that I really have no idea of who you are. On that note....report away waldo. As always it's my hope that the moderators of this thread will see your consistent conflicts with MLW members and hopefully get rid of you for good. I would love to see one conversation where you don't have your condescending, snarky BS at the forefront. Just one! You are the complete opposite of the honest conversation this board needs.

Lol...you mean the very first post where I was actually asking you a question based on the poor study that you offered up? The entire thread was discussing scientists and you offered up this ridiculous attempt at a counter. Now that you realize your absolute mess you are trying to again deflect!

I've repeatedly told you that once you actually respond to the questions posted to you then and only then will I even consider your questions which are clearly poor attempts on your part to derail yet another thread

Which environmental consequences are you talking about? The actual ones observed or the theoretical ones being discussed?

Trying to talk like your buddies in produce again, hey?

I know. Trying to suggest that the number may actually be lower or that there is still a level of undecidedness is like completely impossible to him. The funny thing....your quote talks about Skeptical Science. His study....the epic failure about the abstracts....uses people from Skeptical Science for the study. Hmmmm......biased much????

You mean the graphic that contain various peer reviewed studies all of which are properly referenced if you are so inclined to look at them further. Most important it also contained the study that the OP was discussing which of course is about scientists and NOT abstracts as your epic fail of a post tries to suggest. If you are having a hard time sleeping tonight because of the variety of consensus numbers shown in this graphic then feel free to investigate those individual papers but please....stay on topic!!! As for your idea of conflation....just because I mentioned the word scientist does not mean I conflated anything. If you need reassurance then go back and see how many times I wrote about the percentage of papers or abstracts. With that being said, even your bogus study comments on the authors of the studies expressing a view. In case you don't know....these authors are scientists. So come back with another famous lie....or your go to word 'bumble'. I'm just glad you're not studdering anymore! As per usual, your latest study has nothing to do with this thread which is about consensus. NOTHING!!!!! But yet you still try to derail this thread with that gem. Honestly....you need to rethink your approach as your current one fails you time and time again!!!

Already did....earlier in the thread showing various studies and how they ranged from 82-98% with alarmists like you only acknowledging the higher end. Can't keep up hey? I've already addressed this....once you address the facts of the post that KeepitSimple has already stated then we can move on. However your constant deflection clearly indicates you can't. Opened it and read it when you first posted it. Since it had NOTHING to do with this thread, I then ignored it. The fact that you are now trying to tie it to the consensus is pure comedy as it mentions as much about the consensus as it does about UNCERTAINTY!!!!!! ROTFL.....tough times for the waldo today. Well....most days....just today is really bad.

You have yet to add anything. You should have moved along a long time ago. In the mean time.....I'll continue to be here to smash all your flops. Is this where you threaten me ONCE again about putting me on ignore? LOL

ROTFL....it says the word consensus ONCE. Here..."The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty." It says it once....and is says the consensus is GROWING....as in not rock solid or very high or substantial....it says growing. And this is your contribution to the thread? LOL!!!

Add anything to the thread? Like you adding a study about abstracts when the OP is about scientists? Or like you adding an 'easy read' but offering no reason or insight as to why you added it. Its quite obvious that the only thing you need to move on from is your constant need to derail threads....especially with weak studies that cherry pick data.

Once again....how does this recent 'easy read' tie in with the OP? Don't be afraid to extend yourself by actually quoting something and following it with some of your own thoughts.

I'm always willing to slam any flops you serve up!

Typical waldo....once again! Posts the data with zero insight of his own. Yawn.....

Again....this thread is about the scientists....not their papers. Get it together already!!!!

Saw right through it the minute you put it up. I posted numerous times about the abstracts and various percentages....especially the large number of abstracts indicating no view on AGW. Of course the pure comedy of the situation is that you still refuse to acknowledge the question asked by the OP which is about 97% of SCIENTISTS....not abstracts. But what did you so bravely submit to counter the OP? A study entirely based on abstracts!!! Holy crap waldo...you keep floundering like this and no one will take you serious.....ooops....too late!

You want me to look at your table? Do you mean the one using data that was conveniently carved down from 11,944 papers written by 29,083 authors down to 2142 papers with 1189 authors. Wow...that's quite the hand picked representation. I'll give them credit...they tried emailing 8547 authors but only got 1200 responses. 4% of the total authors....hmmm....but that is good enough for you right? Of course in the first round of the survey, there were 66% of the papers that had no position. Then they decided to email only 30% of the authors (which I'm sure was purely random and had no bias at all...sarcasm alert!) who then self-rated the 'selected' papers again for which they turned the tables and now made only 35% of the papers in the new group to have no position or undecided. As mentioned earlier....among self rated papers not expressing a position, 53.8% were self rated as endorsing the consensus. Using this 53.8% on the carved down, manipulated number of the second phase we still see that 18.8% of the papers do not support or are undecided on the consensus....not 3%. Of course, this is the ONLY stat regarding the papers or respondents of the no position papers in this entire paper so one must assume that this stat of 53.8% was accurate in the first phase which then raises the number to 36%. Is that a broad assumption? Well you can pretty much cut the 53% number in half if you want and we are still at 18% total. So what is the accurate number....somewhere between 18 and 36%....neither of which gives the unwavering supporting number of 3% that you alarmists like to purport. I'm going to beat you to the punch...this doesn't mean 18-36% are against AGW....it means they are undecided. UNDECIDED....which is what other MLW members keep suggesting. Of course, this study chooses not to comment on the actual respondents for those papers who have no positions but they conveniently throw in the 96.4% of the respondents endorsing the consensus for those who had a view. What a bunch of BS. It doesn't surprise me one bit that you buy into this stuff. Of course the concept of examining publications as an indicator of the true consensus is ridiculous anyway. They took papers dating back to 1981? Hmmm...wonder if anything has changed since then? When they emailed these 8547 authors, perhaps they should have just asked if they believe that humans were causing more than 50%....why bother with rating papers which date back to 1981? Of course this way they might actually get hard numbers that couldn't be manipulated or carved down.

Yes...it seems that all of these studies sure seem to dwindle their numbers to the point where they can fabricate an attractive number. I never thought that waldo would actually serve up such a flop but his study is the most obvious of this.

Ah...the typical waldo response. No real content of your own...only a misplaced table that really doesn't explain anything. Think about this one for the weekend and get back to me on Monday...."Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus" For the largest group (2/3) of the study...only 53.8% actually endorse the conensus. But yet you choose to pick out the bottom third and focus there. Hardly self serving.....LOL!!!

You still have problems reading....don't you? Here was my EXACT comment: Tell me how ANYTHING I said is a leap. This is taken EXACTLY from your quote. Was there not 66.4% of the papers that had no comment? Was there not 0.7% of the papers that flat out rejected it? Was there not 0.3% of these papers who outright stated they were undecided? Does this not add up to 67.4%....I'll wait if you need to get your calculator out. Of the papers that had no comment, the abstract gives no indication of whether these scientists endorse the consenses or not. Of course if you did a little deeper we see that only 53.8% actually endorse the consenses. If you would have kept up with the conversation, you would have noticed where I posted the graphic from Michael Hardner's wiki post showing various studies on this matter and how the consenses in these studies range from 82% to 98%....yet the alarmists certainly like to trot out the most self serving numbers....don't they. How about the 82%? And this is taking those studies at face value which obviously is not a good idea based on the insights shown by your recent flop of a study. How convenient that you forgot to post this portion...."Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus". You see...this is what I was getting at. That group of papers with no position left a big question mark but with the above quote we can recalculate to show the true number based on the entire group....not just your self serving, maniputlating one. So lets do the math.....of the 66.4% papers that had no position there were only 53.8% of these authors that actually endorsed the consensus (46.2% that did not). Why... that would mean that 30.1% of the total does not endorse the consenses. Add in the 1% wrote papers against AGW or undecided on it and we are now at 31.1% leaving the true number of hard core AGW endorses based on the TOTAL number of those surveyed at 68.9%. YIKES. Not quite the 97% when you actually take in the whole approach. Great attempt to derail the threa but I'm not biting as you won't touch the question raised by KeepitSimple....as pointed out in the OP title.....Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists? So far you have only presented a study that shows 97% over small subset and 68.9% over the entire group. Show me where 97% of all scientists actually endorse AGW. Why do alarmists purposely choose the 97% number when it is clearly misleading. PS...I'll give you a hint. Its because they are no different than the deniers in that they have their own agendas.

My problem is that as per usual you trot out what you feel is conclusive evidence to something that is so very clearly undecided. 66% of the papers have no comment....yet they take the 34% that do have a position and exlpoit the 97% figure. All you hear about is the 97% of scientists claim....but nothing of the undecided. Does this not seem the least bit manipulative to you? If not then maybe you'll believe that 97% of British Columbians back the Northern Gateway....based on the 30 Enbridge employees I spoke to. Just a minor 'qualification' as you claim.

Not word that I said is deviated or miscontrued from the quoted substance that you stated. The facts based on YOUR chosen study show that 66.4% of the abstracts had NO postition. Usually you throw up a much larger presentation with charts and graphs that scares most people off. Something that might actually be convincing. But you just flopped right out of the gate on this one. You just handed it right to KeepitSimple....didn't you. Wow.

No kidding. I never thought waldo would actually serve up a flop like that which actually proved what you were saying. Yikes.

Yes....I am quite aware that logic doesn't matter to waldo. I just like seeing him flounder especially when he's the one to quote his preferred study which actually shows the flaws that the OP is talking about. Pure comedy.

You're right it is straight forward....67.4% have either no opinion or are against the idea of AGW. Pretty conclusive. I guess you're still struggling with PPP to figure these numbers out. Lol.