Seriously ignorant, you don't really have a clue, do you ? https://t.co/WGFdYKO1n8
@Alchemywizzard 1/ In climate science today, there is overwhelming (greater than 97%) expert consensus that CO2 traps heat and warms the planet. https://t.co/q5nj9TlRo1 https://t.co/QmJaeDLIlt https://t.co/xng0jAF0ZX https://t.co/pcWayrMICQ https://t.c
@transpalacinka @Karel_Datel @BarekSvata @MichalStruha @BlkoJa Že globální změna klimatu je způsobena člověkem. https://t.co/F9W3JCqMIG https://t.co/aB3LEwTtxm
@ThomasRodmann @Anonymous00708 Erderwärmung und Klimakatastrophen sind Folgen vom Klimawandel. Das wir darauf Einfluss haben eine Metaanalyse (= Zusammenfassung von allen Studien): https://t.co/lLNdQTxobT Die AfD fördert Punkte, die das Klima negativ bee
@LaBombetta76 @SaP011 Le presento il "consenso scientifico"" https://t.co/Qvop9QLQsD "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming" 2/3 degli s
@maragotaman @latimeralder No, no, I simply bother to read about the subject: https://t.co/NBA7rWCm91 As written about by scientists working in the field.
RT @critica_omette: @EnzodeIanni1 @climacritic Forse manca un'idea degli ordini di grandezza. La meta-analisi di Cook et al, 2013, per esem…
@EnzodeIanni1 @climacritic Forse manca un'idea degli ordini di grandezza. La meta-analisi di Cook et al, 2013, per esempio, conteneva 12000 articoli. 160 sono poco più dell'1%. Per alcuni di questi sono estrapolazioni da singole frasi, altri sono predato
@Habi12345678900 @LUNDLanguages @tweety_002 @politicalbeauty https://t.co/FcrYrqsEhr Zum nachlesen, wie man bei 1.382 Papieren zum Menschengemachten Klimawandel bei 11,244 Ausganspapieren auf 97% kommt. 😂😂Und dieses Märchen verbreitet wird.
@R_E_Palmer @GreenpeaceUK It is. 97,2% according to that peer reviewed article. https://t.co/hvbTD2eo5u
RT @olivergorus: Quelle u.a.: https://t.co/PF4Qu7OJPF und: https://t.co/TeWCcic7ex
RT @olivergorus: Quelle u.a.: https://t.co/PF4Qu7OJPF und: https://t.co/TeWCcic7ex
RT @NarfGb: Folow the science (via TV) or follow science (via reading?) (1/ means scroll down and read the studies and headlines) https:…
@GoranTheTrojan @eingemaischt @Maxi7723050670 @PeterW46172510 @GustavsonElena Ok, es waren 97% nicht 99% (derer, die eine Position äußerten). https://t.co/4LkWxcZoVj Die Aussage "68% neutral oder ablehnend" ist ein ganz billiger Taschenspielertrick: "We fi
@waynejv1973 @Race2Extinct https://t.co/58UHT9qaJh You seem to be trying to avoid the question. Cook 2013 is the question, the other papers reference it. Start at the beginning.
@waynejv1973 @Race2Extinct https://t.co/7HMB9Okb5C Better??? As in the lies are hidden better? No thanks, Cook 2013 give us your analysis.
@ZeFix81 @Felix47466614 @capek78 @stoneval_cp @Besserw54662310 @rahmstorf Und was du sagst könnte sein... Bezieht sich z. B. darauf, der Wasserspiegel erhot sich um 1m, es könnte aber sein, daß es auch 2m sind. Wenn man schon Studien zitiert sollte man au
@ansite20 @sumar @Yolanda_Diaz_ Si 99 climatologos dicen que si y uno dice que no, usted escucha sólo al que dice que no. Esto no es escepticismo, esto es sesgo de confirmación https://t.co/bO87BTFLOO
@RicardoHonesto https://t.co/egpgYxQcGO Do you believe that "97%consensus"? Ever read that paper? If you do you should keep in mind that there might be a difference between ALL climate scientists and those who chose to express an opinion.
@d_le_nen @DedanusRotWeiss @Roman_Go_ Die >97% Einigkeit beruhen auf der Studie von Cook (2013). Bestätigt eine Beteiligung des Menschen am Klimawandel (den kein Mensch bestreitet) aber nicht, in welchem Umfang. Es lohnt sich, die Studie durchzuarbeiten
@NWLibertarian @nytimes This might be of interest. I am waiting for peer reviewed articles supporting your point of view https://t.co/bO87BTFLOO
@AzharTheGreat @PeterSweden7 True. Please note climate science is falsifiable if any relevant evidence comes forward but the basics of the greenhouse effect are well established. https://t.co/czEyV1FtIt Noone has been able to refute that https://t.co/9zzP8
RT @Dbailey2412: @ProfRieck @denkenistkrass @tomdabassman sagen Sie zu dieser Manipulation bzw. komplett fehlerhaften Auslegung? Hier der L…
@ProfRieck @denkenistkrass @tomdabassman sagen Sie zu dieser Manipulation bzw. komplett fehlerhaften Auslegung? Hier der Link zur Studie. https://t.co/GO8NGyXhXe 2/2
@RealTadzioM @tomdabassman In der Zwischenzeit ein wenig Wissenschaft für dich. 60% aller Klimastudien kommen zu KEINEM Ergebnis. https://t.co/kRqzrjJ6Si
@HannoKlausmeier Please read the paper: https://t.co/kRqzrjJ6Si
@schneider_chris @solarpapst @schaefer_j @Bundeskanzler @bdew Lass mich mal raten du bist Team, ich lese ne Schlagzeile... Naja einfaches Gemüt nehme ich an. Lesen und verstehen: https://t.co/kRqzrjJ6Si
RT @10mm_404: @Dardedar @CO2Coalition @FriendsOScience You mean how they only looked at the abstract? The vast majority of the articles use…
RT @10mm_404: @Dardedar @CO2Coalition @FriendsOScience You mean how they only looked at the abstract? The vast majority of the articles use…
RT @10mm_404: @Dardedar @CO2Coalition @FriendsOScience You mean how they only looked at the abstract? The vast majority of the articles use…
RT @10mm_404: @Dardedar @CO2Coalition @FriendsOScience You mean how they only looked at the abstract? The vast majority of the articles use…
@Dardedar @CO2Coalition @FriendsOScience You mean how they only looked at the abstract? The vast majority of the articles used for the scientific consensus didn't have an opinion on the topic. This is the same site used for that, https://t.co/ipSdx9ugmu
Nel 2013 Cook ed altri hanno pubblicato il primo di una serie di studi bibliografici volti a quantificare la posizione della comunità scientifica riguardo l'impatto umano nel riscaldamento climatico osservato. https://t.co/d3iBGP54gI
RT @LaurelCoons: Climate Change: 🌍Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference…
RT @LaurelCoons: Climate Change: 🌍Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference…
RT @LaurelCoons: Climate Change: 🌍Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference…
@Diver_Flemming Here's the problem 1. The consensus figure is deeply flawed https://t.co/GzAKIQRQrP ➡️
@doom37455413 @Damo__73_ @TonyClimate Here's a novel idea: why don't you read the paper? https://t.co/mSR6fvsqVD
@DavidHu20354920 @riversidepucks @young_bruce @WBrettWilson The “consensus” you speak of actually came from this rag. Which actually showed the vast majority of scientists do not believe humans cause climate change. Only 33% even mentioned humans as a pos
RT @fmeeus1: Link naar bron https://t.co/mBK3TY64ph
RT @fmeeus1: Link naar bron https://t.co/mBK3TY64ph
Link naar bron https://t.co/mBK3TY64ph
@Cryptowhatevers @fmeeus1 Alweer een nonsens bericht van Ferdinand wat door leken als zoete koek opgegeten wordt 🙄🙄🙄
@apbiogenesis @hughosmond @grofley @CommunityNotes Ha! Well, as a Brit, I say 'math' to make people notice, though of course I was brought up to say 'maths'. This article argues that 'math' is better, because 'mathematics' isn't a plural & as a Christi
@apbiogenesis @hughosmond @grofley @CommunityNotes Again, this isn't true. I've read numerous articles: over 97% of _papers_ and 97% of climate scientists agree that burning fossil fuels is leading to AGW. But empirically it's true that consensus on CO2 as
@AnoiumtheFifth @MarcusWadsak Es gibt viele Studien dazu und Sie brauchen keinen Marcus Wadsak um Google zu bedienen. Hier auch ein Link: https://t.co/MNGI5DYJtD
@painfulgnome @Neuropa_ @zdunior @AgaSzczepienia @andy_wilinski https://t.co/KPGTbHx8by to chyba nie takie proste
@Juicifer19 @JunkScience @TonyClimate The scientific consensus on climate change gets even stronger https://t.co/dJswNOuBuC
El consenso académico es total, pero eso no implica que haya consenso social; que lo diga "la ciencia", no implica que todos los acepten. Este estudio de EEUU muestra que mientras hay un 97% de consenso científico, hay un 57% de consenso social (https://t.
@dermothee @K4Climate He did.... 😏 https://t.co/5SPt3rtMCz
RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
@BerndBaumg99037 @Luisamneubauer Tatsächlich eine gute Frage! Ich habe nochmal in die zu Grunde liegende Metaanalyse geschaut, in der diese Frage leider unbeantwortet bleibt. Meiner Meinung nach ein berechtigter Kritikpunkt. Andere Analysen differenzieren
@andrepphd @lastsaskliner @AngelicaOung Ever actually read Cook's "97%consensus" paper? https://t.co/egpgYxQcGO
@lebob71 @AiRicK63 @aallicheoff @Ozymandiasdu172 @PerrinRemonte Dans le cas du RCA, il y a largement consensus, avec des données extrêmement solide et répliqué des centaines de fois. https://t.co/7dYDGklO5z
#auspol The first of a series from this individual - who seems to think if something is mentioned in a paper its a consensus https://t.co/jnzN0gAn0B Intellectually is pre enlightenment period but somehow it ended up on NASA's site. Reflects the quality of
@PullNews @johndoerr @pmarca @peterthiel @mcuban @AnnieDuke @scottalexander @ev Previous years consensus. 1991-2011. 11,944 papers, only 84 disagree with Human caused GW. Thats a miniscule 0.7% https://t.co/EMRSegir0o
@greencommanderr @DanaeDenna @SantinoCripto @wallstwolverine Venga progre, nanacoco y a dormir. 🍼 https://t.co/rqxSE6by3X
@lkwarzecha @AKurniewicz @Piotr8stars @DominikaLasota1 Konsensus w nauce jest sprzeczny z nauką https://t.co/gfIHke98uF https://t.co/yv2GvitesZ
RT @NarfGb: Folow the science (via TV) or follow science (via reading?) (1/ means scroll down and read the studies and headlines) https:…
Sehr nette Zusammenstellung, @NarfGb
RT @NarfGb: Climate bullshit sorted and updated. https://t.co/VtFllTxlvc
RT @NarfGb: Folow the science (via TV) or follow science (via reading?) (1/ means scroll down and read the studies and headlines) https:…
@AnoiumtheFifth @klausamtresen @tagesschau Autsch. Bist du nicht einmal fähig eine einfache Googlesuche zu tätigen? https://t.co/NM1TqpXpOs Du glaubst also, dass die Millarden Tonnen CO2, Methan und andere Treibhausgase die wir jährlich in die Luft pusten
@Albichota1912 Ya te resumí más arriba los resultados reales. Pero si queres leer los 12 mil artículos acá está el link. https://t.co/azdHz7mF9Z
@MartinCothran @AtomsksSanakan @scruztiger The answer is that of course I can understand stuff like https://t.co/0q5vDYwIDV It's very basic, contains no complicated science and will show you the lie claiming 97% of climate scientist agree that global warmi
@MartinCothran @AtomsksSanakan @scruztiger Try reading it before criticising others. It's not climate science, it's about numbers. But if you don't have sufficient intellect for basic maths and lack an enquiring mind, I really don't know how you ever becam
@TrimyJorge @valeriorenzi @AlekosPrete No certo, infatti "solo" il 97% degli esperti di clima lo dice. https://t.co/VUU6hia62x
@tonyannett there is no consensus https://t.co/gW1RlOdVGe We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. 97% refers among those who took the po
@Lucas6580145410 @Daniel861027 @jesseklaver Heb je die Paper zelf wel eens gelezen? https://t.co/PVqkKTH5F9 Gewoon maar wat zeggen, want niemand controleert toch of het waar is of niet. Wat je hier zegt klopt echt niet, en is ook nooit beweerd.
RT @rpeh: @bjames280961 @BtaD42255016 @philbaylisss @timmytapper @DaleVince @JuliaHB1 From the link on that graphic: "Among papers expressi…
@bjames280961 @BtaD42255016 @philbaylisss @timmytapper @DaleVince @JuliaHB1 From the link on that graphic: "Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the sc
@butchthorne @WHolloughby @LizWebsterSBF @CarolineLucas While on the other hand... It clearly takes more than a random 1000 eminent scientists to even change a light bulb. I'll see your polar bear and raise you a much bigger polar bear! https://t.co/Oboi6X
@Krid_Stems @fmeeus1 Hierbij het artikel. @fmeeus1 claimt de verkeerde consensus. Ij 2013 was het 97%. Huidige consensus is nu meer dan 99%. https://t.co/Q6VsKi4sBZ
@Guido_Smeets @GeelenJoris @fmeeus1 @klwinkel Ferdinand post een plakplaatje uit het artikel. De CONCLUSIE van het artikel durft hij niet te plaatsen, want dan schiet hij in zijn eigen voet. Hierbij het hele artikel uit 2013! https://t.co/Q6VsKi4sBZ
@fmeeus1 Hierbij een linkje naar jouw plakplaatjes. Als je het artikel IN Z'N GEHEEL leest kun je uit de CONCLUSIE opmaken dat zelfs ten tijde van het publiceren in 2013 er een brede consensus was van ruim 97%. Tegenwoordig ligt de consensus op ruim 99%. h
@DIJK251055 @fmeeus1 HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH ik heb het onderzoek opgezocht wat je quote: https://t.co/Q0Q7yF8Rov HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHABAHA artikel zegt PRECIES het tegenovergestelde
RT @Distelvink20: @DietVdb @fmeeus1 Here you are. https://t.co/16brhy45Qw
@DietVdb @fmeeus1 Here you are. https://t.co/16brhy45Qw
@TelcharGer @McBain2310 @KazimBridges Leider immer das gleiche Muster. Schauen Sie mal hier, falls es geht, zum Konsens in der Wissenschaft (Klima). https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ
@FChecker76 Here you have multiple studies and respected institutions support this conclusion: - Scientific Consensus: A comprehensive analysis of scientific literature found that over 97% of climate scientists agree on the human influence on global warmin
RT @NarfGb: 1/3 Answer Spoke someone who is too stupid to read the linked studies and understand reality and geo chemistry (Henry's law)…
RT @NarfGb: 1/3 Answer Spoke someone who is too stupid to read the linked studies and understand reality and geo chemistry (Henry's law)…
@DrJanKirsch @musicladyelaine Have you ever actually read any of those "consensus" papers? You should. https://t.co/egpgYxQcGO
@Watscher1 @HansPereit @MarcusWadsak Die Mehrheit der Wissenschaftler die sich diese Frage gestellt haben kommen zu diesem Ergebnis: https://t.co/KWV2Owufs3
@mschmarcz To je nějaký nonsense. Studie říká, že z 11 944 abstraktů jen 32.6% za tím vidělo lidi a z těchto 97.1% za tím vidělo oteplování. Takže 97.1% z 32.6% => 31.6% za tím vidělo člověka oteplovatele. Nebo koukám na špatnou studii? https://t.co/D
@GeraldKutney #CLIMATE_5 Many studies have evaluated the scientific consensus, but the most famous, which as of this summer has been downloaded 1 million times, is this 2013 paper quantifying that agreement at over 97%. #ClimateBrawl #ClimateCrisis #Globa
@akaelwopo1 @GeraldKutney @mutts4me_sherri @bleasdale_r @DawnTJ90 There are several papers evaluating the consensus on climate change, all of them conclude the consensus is massive : https://t.co/RFZjif9Kmt "97%" is Cook & al 2013. It refers to a stu
@BallifMichel @GranyPhillipe @AssoClimatoReal Non, rien à voir avec le GIEC. Ce sont des méta études qui classent les 12 000 publications scientifiques sur le sujet : https://t.co/1RvCTt0iK9