RT @K4Climate: Furthermore, it cited 29,083 authors but failed to demonstrate that 97% of them agreed on anything. With that amount of chi…
@jars_rover @FernandoVallada Irónicamente, de esta revisión de estudios surgió aquello del 97 % de apoyo a la teoría , pero en verdad mas de un 7000 ( 63% ) estudios no se expiden sobre el tema, negacionistas según tu definición. https://t.co/AdyAxGzA1z
@rico_brick @chvoyage @MartinLandvoigt Können Sie das belegen? Ansonsten steht folgender Fakt: "...untersuchte es die rund 12.000 klimawissenschaftlichen Fachveröffentlichungen...97 Prozent stimmten explizit oder implizit zu, dass die Erderwärmung stattfin
@robinmonotti @thierrybaudet Here’s the original study: https://t.co/aw34ZxPuEd
RT @Canadia56668243: @JohnStossel @curryja @JohnStossel, this is the study the claims of a 97% consensus came from. Take a minute to read t…
@justabob59 @oliver93877389 Bringen Sie mal Belege. Das wär doch mal ein Anfang, oder? Das Video haben Sie vor 9 Min. gesehen? In Gänze? Beeindruckend. Sind sich alle Wissenschaftler zu 99,x% einig? Einfach drollig. https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ
@RobLarrikin @JFMYQQ @PhysInHistory From 1991 to 2011 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is human induced (https://t.co/PDMGyZz5Bs). And that has only increased. This list contains at most a couple hundred researchers in fields even remote
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @Canadia56668243: @BenGoldsmith @calvinrobinson The scientific consensus so overwhelming? Here’s the study the 97% consensus claim came…
@BenGoldsmith @calvinrobinson The scientific consensus so overwhelming? Here’s the study the 97% consensus claim came from. It takes one minute to read the abstract and do the math. They lied. In fact, 70% disagree. See for yourself. https://t.co/GVkPk03z
@tonycartman1 @COUNTERSPIN111 @NZGreens The supposedly 97% Consensus https://t.co/faZTf2urZp https://t.co/wE8QJ5mMvr
RT @Canadia56668243: @JohnStossel @curryja @JohnStossel, this is the study the claims of a 97% consensus came from. Take a minute to read t…
@JohnStossel @curryja @JohnStossel, this is the study the claims of a 97% consensus came from. Take a minute to read the abstract and you’ll see what they did. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/IsHr7D8oCc
@GunneGrankvist @anderson_berg @ShabbakiBarbro @herrlin_patrik @DickErixon Studien hittar du här. Det har gjorts en uppsjö av motstudier också som pekar ut dess fel och brister. https://t.co/uG92MriHZk
@JeanPaulLarivee @RJD_666 @dverret65 @marie_helie Le climat change. Est-ce AGW? Personne ne peut prétendre le savoir car cela n'a jamais été démontré autrement que par des modèles mathématiques. Le '97% de consensus' est un fallacie répétés ad nauseam par
RT @homerlinux: @mlalanda Ni siquiera hay consenso en que el supuesto consenso sobre el origen antropogénico del calentamiento global sea r…
@mlalanda Ni siquiera hay consenso en que el supuesto consenso sobre el origen antropogénico del calentamiento global sea real. Si se convierte en un acto de fe, ya no es científico. Hay estudios que cuestionan dicho consenso: https://t.co/Al7U4GzfJJ
@StevenL38238777 @Dein_Korrektor @unblogd @KurtHeydrich Du findest hier das Paper: https://t.co/PAZa2969dj
@baenschman @olliw0870 @SHomburg Leider komplett falsch: Es wurden fast 12.000 Veröffentlichungen zw. 1991-2011 zum Thema „global warming“ geprüft. An den Arbeiten, die den menschengemachten Klimawandel bestätigen, haben über 10.000 Autoren geschrieben. Nu
@ExbondO @OperadorNuclear @CarloDesign1 @CSIC Un trabajo sobre el consenso del calentamiento global antropogénico: https://t.co/Al7U4GzfJJ
@gunnigunzbert @AtheistvonGG @1234Fit @robinmonotti Sorry. https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ Konsens.
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
@SHomburg Die ganze Zeit, die du dir nimmst um hier Fake News und Grütze zu verzapfen könntest du dir auch nehmen um dich mit der Forschungslage zum Klimawandel zu beschäftigen Leseempfehlung: https://t.co/9yUQbUwOF9
@Dardedar @Dollarlogic @curryja By the way, the 97% number comes from here: https://t.co/s70HGf17RY It is actually 97% of 33.4% so let's say about 32%. Not really a consensus.
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
@AvelinoQuantum @scienceisbeauty Y así concluyó que el consenso científico era del 97% Frase que luego Obama hizo trending toppic y hoy en día seguimos repitiendo como loros. Buenas tardes y un saludo, de alguien que si se forma: https://t.co/PS0oFPvLxC
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
@KurtHeydrich @MrJonasDanner @Knutti_ETH Die Meta-Studie "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" von Cook et. al. https://t.co/q0Ypj2ZECU Der Author manipuliert u.a. durch die Art der Kategorienbildung und
@yapdiver @ars_gravitatis @JensGanman Vad är det där för ohederligt strunt? Läs Cook-artikeln (uppsatser skriver studenter) själv: https://t.co/kYFrlfpxgB Knappt 3900 gav uttryck för en åsikt om klimatförändringarna, och stödde då att den mänskliga bidrage
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
@Cimeador @eldiarioes Sobre las causas: el consenso que se nos vende a diario en los medios sobre el origen humano es falso, según este y otros estudios. Que si, que hay que reducir emisiones, pero sin histeria y con honestidad: https://t.co/Al7U4GzNzh
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
Espúreo es creer que el que grita mas fuerte tiene la razón, sin considerar la evidencia científica. Toma éste que es casi la respuesta inmediata: https://t.co/sM3MpEFClW
@paolammond Esa es una afirmación espuria. Te invito a leer la publicación que se cita incansablemente (Cook et al 2013), para enterarte que de ninguna manera existe ese «consenso». https://t.co/Ur84s9d1Gx
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
@Andy_May_Writer There is a 97% consensus only in a world where 2+2=5. Read the abstract. Do the math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/xi9v6Pbxw2
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @Canadia56668243: @disclosetv 97% of scientists agree is a lie. Here’s the study that claim came from. You can see what they did by read…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
RT @ChGefaell: Algunas fuentes: https://t.co/4xy3iBrjBg https://t.co/ch5BhD7NSn https://t.co/g6Axt5cBFv https://t.co/Be0hfOWj3t https:/…
@TomPlayford3 @ECOWARRIORSS Over 2000 citations but someone in denial wouldn't know what a scientific consensus or even a citation is... Oh yes..You deserve insults but at least I'm not verbally abusing you.. Just trying to show you're wrong... https://t.c
Om någon vill dubbelkolla. 97% - https://t.co/g5m3LRiUf9 99% - https://t.co/1Hreny8Fkx
Om någon vill dubbelkolla. 97% - https://t.co/g5m3LRiUf9 99% - https://t.co/1Hreny8Fkx
@IanCrossland @OliLondonTV False 97% Consensus Forcing mob rule in a REPUBLIC 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/YRjcVseVUU 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQTkVRp 2010 Anderegg 97% https://t.co/027Yl2duVe 2013 Cook 3896/4014=97% https://t.co/
RT @Canadia56668243: @disclosetv 97% of scientists agree is a lie. Here’s the study that claim came from. You can see what they did by read…
@WallStreetSilv The 97% claim came from this study. Takes two minutes to read the abstract to see what they did here. G’head. What % do you come up with? https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/bCepUQfxn7
@ScottAdamsSays @ScottAdamsSays here is the study that 97% claim came from. It’s a lie. Take 2 mins and read the abstract and you’ll see what they did. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/mS7NivR8vX
@disclosetv 97% of scientists agree is a lie. Here’s the study that claim came from. You can see what they did by reading the abstract and doing the math. In fact, about 70% of scientists disagree. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/QIfMdDFyym
@gasko89 @Fabio_DeBunker https://t.co/md9b0ZWNr9 detto questo, secondo me, se ci pensa un attimo, la scopre da solo, la fallacia logica della sua affermazione. ps: è un articolo a cui si accede a pagamento, mi sta dicendo che lei si basa su un abstract??
@LeaoPaulista @BernieSpofforth @GeordieNomadRN Are you trying to find a win somewhere by bouncing around the topic erratically? This is what you're referring to, 97.2% endorsed the consensus, not 0.5%, you got it backwards https://t.co/L6GbtZWxzb Also thi
@wsourdeau @Alec_japon @EMenard24h À ce titre, le soi-disant '97% de consensus' n'est en fait qu'un peu plus de 30% des articles évalués par Cook et al. Il y a pas plus une majorité qui soutiennent 'endorsing' que 'Rejecting' AGW. La majorité soutiennent
RT @MatthewWielicki: @xpaulso These number are in the original study linked here: https://t.co/wN5JV5We5x
@curryja @JohnStossel The 97% consensus claim came from this study. Read the abstract, do the math. About 31%. Throw this at anyone who says 97% agree, then ask if they can do basic math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/jaUw2p0BCU
@JohnStossel @curryja Here is the study the 97% lie came from. Read the abstract and do the math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/wMtD8N7GVY
@l_angiolini @MaxCi65 @BenedettaFrucci Ma porcaccia... Qui, l’articolo a cui è stata estratta quella citazione a cazzo. Leggilo! I 2/3 non è che non si esprimono. Proprio non affrontano il tema nel abstract che sintetizza la loro ricerca (che probabilmente
@BoncularB71452 @maria_harrison @LabourOutOfScot @CharlieJGardner The non peer reviewed paper by Cook et al., showed clearly that 66.4% (a majority) of the published climate literature also took no position on the cause of climate change. https://t.co/Ttx
@Lo_VVriter @mtobis Cook et all rated abstracts. But they slso let the scientist selfrate it. https://t.co/EeHYqN5hDs 3.2
@christianevejlo Man kan ikke kun bebrejde DR, olieselskaberne kører jo deres eget løb på sidelinjen. 😕 https://t.co/iJx4LiSB1h
@king_roger773jh @bluemarioc Source d'où provient le data du graphique : https://t.co/sCY9eg83w8
@MrJonasDanner @dweezil58 Das ist doch noch gar nichts! Wenn ich 100 Leute, die sich jeden Morgen die Zähne putzen, frage, ob sie sich jeden Morgen die Zähne putzen, erziele ich sogar eine Quote von 100%! Das Märchen von den 97% oder 99,9% (oder so): htt
@de_Cadenet13 @Frank_Mortimer @afneil I acc have to hold my hands up here for posting a dead link! This is the correct study which finds that of 12k papers regarding "global warming" or "climate change", 97% of the 4k studies that expressed the opinion tha
@chrisadperform @EssexPR I'm not sure there is much debate among serious scientists. There's an overwhelming concensus: https://t.co/HKILZlYA8B
@DanCady @DoubleDumas @25_cycle @GeraldKutney @Greens Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., ... & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Env
@jordanbpeterson 2013 Cook et al at Queensland U volunteer categorize 12.465 abstracts from 29.083 authors 3.896 endorce AGW 7.930 had no position 78 uncertain 40 ofher Omiting ABSTRACTS clasifide ass "with no position", 3.896+78+40=4.014 3.896/4.014 = 97
@jordanbpeterson False Consensus! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange 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 3.8
@afneil Did you apologise to the authors of this paper for misrepresenting their findings? https://t.co/nHQbrAtPLu
@joesanders33 @KaasEtertje25 @1goodtern @cooper_carter You’re right in as much as there's no theory nor any argument to be had. Anthropogenic GW is real. As is the transition to renewables. https://t.co/KKFG1BSjnl There is the established, agreed upon scie
@cheburatorsky @IBJIYONGI Also notice how '97% consensus of scientists' stands in relation to real study. We still have to take care of our environment, produce less garbage, learn how to recycle but let us not go frenzy: https://t.co/W73ibobFFV https://t.
@TedNugent better yet, that consensus it completely bogus. Here is the only study they reference for it. the study turned 32.6% into 97% by ignoring 66% of the papers analyzed. its all in the abstract https://t.co/2tVnqQ7qVi
@henri_loreci @lucayepa Solo una minoranza prende posizione netta: https://t.co/lO102bseGd Inoltre, anche fossero una schiacciante maggioranza, non avremmo comunque “la verità”. È una nota fallacia logica. Chiudo ricordando che la scienza è un fatto umano
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change https://t.co/t9meGcXD81 https://t.co/QSPoe2jKaT https://t.co/S1SRwynTH4 https://t.co/KHyPTPoGlE https://t.co/dr3LKhmb2Y
@KommisPolitik @Kachelmann Ich würde es ja ein aus dem Zusammenhang gerissenes Foto eines Buches nennen. Aber wenn du meinst.🤡 https://t.co/1dbyi6YKKX
@OwenPryce2 @NATOpotato2000 @DavidBlythBEM @GaryLineker I am surprised that NASA make the "97% of scientists" mistake. This is a quote from the original study: "Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus." https://
@Wonderb85343835 @HolzheuStefan @rosenbusch_ Wie viele Studien brauchen Sie so? https://t.co/7uTykxTMYd https://t.co/EtDXWbPJcK https://t.co/ArpvfNuTy5 https://t.co/QElVg94TUx https://t.co/05jFi935Xt ..... https://t.co/iPTxi3XtIM
@DACDAC4DAC Here is John Cook’s actual paper, https://t.co/mfHm9LLpwh
@BoswachterRob Wat die meneer in jouw video m.i. onjuist weergeeft is hoe die 97% precies is berekend: hun kritiek beperkt zich alleen op de ‘samenvatting analyse’, niet op de survey in 2e deel van studie waar ook 97% uit kwam. https://t.co/rM5KrhJLJ5 http
@MrTate @MythinformedMKE all of the so called concensus leads back to ONE meta-data analysis. https://t.co/2tVnqQ7qVi See if you can spot where they turn 32% into 97%. Its right in the abstract. They don't have settled science, they have this. and nothing