@liberaloChris Fast alle? Hier ist die Studie auf die du diese Info beziehst: https://t.co/vXsfVX1vm5 Und hier eine einfache Widerlegung mit Quellenverlinkung: https://t.co/ztSYvxILKd Es gibt in der Wissenschaft keine Konsens, höchstens in Nordkorea ode
RT @Canadia56668243: @TonyClimate Here’s the study that claim came from. Do the math. It’s not 97%. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/V…
@TonyClimate Here’s the study that claim came from. Do the math. It’s not 97%. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV https://t.co/VdIosXi3AN
Herr Grosskopf verkennt andere Meinungen. Die gibt es tatsächlich! Ist das Demokratie? https://t.co/ZqUejB5TJe https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ oder https://t.co/7ufP3Q4DWE
The paper has been downloaded over 1.3 million times - not bad for a scientific paper. It also just passed 2000 citations (on Google Scholar). https://t.co/dFaOnYifBt
Here's the paper. See for yourself. https://t.co/v0qKYbVENC
So ist es. Sind alle Wissenschaftler einer Meinung? Mitnichten! https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ
@Lu6fer_jr @95Ticonderoga @PGuerendel @Stephane_Treize @Elpis_R Le mec site Clintel puis me bloque ? Ahahah mais y'a pas pire comme source, la fondation est financée par les lobbies du pétrole ! en attendant, dans les fait, dans la Science, faut lire un p
@Andrnunez2 @Kloridrix @TatianaVentose Commence à lire autre chose que Twitter André, ça te fera pas de mal, il y a consensus. Va lire et ramène moi la preuve qu'il n'y en a pas : https://t.co/TVvI8o0DtZ https://t.co/1bQniU7LBP https://t.co/upk7b8PEp7 http
@CZilmer @TomJensen1966 @berlingske Skal vi tage den fra kilden - altså den videnskabelige! “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” https://t.co/1TWEZcxEmV
@ATomalty @Lomasi62 Here’s the paper the lie came from. Take two minutes, read the abstract, do the math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV
@theotherphilipp Es ist einfach echt schwierig bis nahezu unmöglich wissenschaftlich fundierte „Schriften“ zu finden die der Synthese des IPCC widersprechen; einfach weil hierüber ein überwältigender Konsensus in der Scientific Community besteht: z.B. http
Klimawandel. Sind alle Wissenschaftler einer Meinung? Sogar in dieser Meta sind nur ein Drittel der Meinung, dass der Mensch die Ursache ist (AGW, menschengemachte globale Erwärmung). 👇 https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ
RT @K4Climate: Almost 10 years ago to the day, Cook et al, Barrack Obama and the climate science community began openly lying to the world…
RT @K4Climate: Almost 10 years ago to the day, Cook et al, Barrack Obama and the climate science community began openly lying to the world…
RT @K4Climate: Almost 10 years ago to the day, Cook et al, Barrack Obama and the climate science community began openly lying to the world…
RT @K4Climate: Almost 10 years ago to the day, Cook et al, Barrack Obama and the climate science community began openly lying to the world…
Almost 10 years ago to the day, Cook et al, Barrack Obama and the climate science community began openly lying to the world by claiming there was a 97% consensus about the cause of global warming. #FactCheck https://t.co/qLkg80upDM
@4lm4c3 @Path10Just @miktux1 @LibertyCappy https://t.co/MxX5jEiudu Sometimes that’s the case and it’s unfortunate but gennerally when that happens it still show a good percentage the other way but for climate change it doesn’t. It still showed climate
RT @K4Climate: @ProfMarkMaslin @Global_Witness @elonmusk @Twitter Probably because they lie so much? Show where "99.9% of scientists" appe…
@Galerotto @LaBombetta76 @neghittoso @BoccardoReal @UltimaGenerazi1 @PiazzapulitaLA7 Guarda, sei talmente capra che non verifichi nemmeno le fonti. Ti lascio il paper originale cosí magai impari qualcosa. Ma sono sicuro che un analfabeta funzionale come te
@reitschuster Das ist schon sehr bemerkenswert. Laut dieser Meta sind sich die Wissenschaftler nicht einig. Nur ~33% sprechen sich für ein AGW (anthropogenic global warming) aus. https://t.co/xymTsQbqIZ
RT @MagChange_73: La NASA: Seulement 33.6% des 11000+ études évaluées endosse la thèse du réchauffement global entropique. Lâchez pas les…
RT @MagChange_73: La NASA: Seulement 33.6% des 11000+ études évaluées endosse la thèse du réchauffement global entropique. Lâchez pas les…
RT @MagChange_73: La NASA: Seulement 33.6% des 11000+ études évaluées endosse la thèse du réchauffement global entropique. Lâchez pas les…
La NASA: Seulement 33.6% des 11000+ études évaluées endosse la thèse du réchauffement global entropique. Lâchez pas les #sansmaths. https://t.co/SjWNJu4xeQ https://t.co/sCY9eg83w8 https://t.co/sr4OyshIcK
@2whatshappening @AubreyEl1 @cspanwj @JohnFeehery @woodhouseb @GOP 2 of 2 👉🏿 https://t.co/6oSgGbWset 👈🏿 👉🏿 https://t.co/jdpGYbTIEp 👈🏿 👉🏿 https://t.co/fNFV7ZS2Qh 👈🏿 👉🏿 https://t.co/oWHWH6RK8X 👈🏿 👉🏿 https://t.co/aEMxoagspz 👈🏿 1👉🏿 https://t.co/LQIi17hvFP 👈🏿 2
@PetitMoe2 @jacquesjazz44 Et voilà : le fameux 'consensus' ... Vous ne savez même pas qu'ils parlent de Cook & al. et que c’est 97% d’une niche précise, ceux qui ont une position sur AGW car les autres qui ne se positionne pas ne sont pas moins des sci
@patwebbjr Citation? Not this Cook paper, apparently. https://t.co/07QBtN8EQc
@ancistroneura @ProfMickWilson Only the abstract? Why not read the entire paper and Cook's conclusion in the final sentence: "an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW
@latimeralder Can you quantify any issues with Jones' work? This was the best way to respond to the issues, rather than the personal attacks and conspiratorial frenzy that quickly degraded the discussion space: https://t.co/fcWbAfNs9p
@MozartsTrump @ProfMickWilson You have just misrepresented the paper. Perhaps read it yourself before parroting others distortions? https://t.co/fcWbAfNs9p https://t.co/7InqkOFnYF
@WesterseWaarden @SamvanRooy1 @vrtnws Misschien moet je je ook eens wagen aan wetenschappelijke literatuur? https://t.co/LvWcYXlUMt
RT @arbaman_learnin: This is the study grifters refer to when they claim consensus of 97% among climate scientists. https://t.co/95TUv8QwNm…
This is the study grifters refer to when they claim consensus of 97% among climate scientists. https://t.co/95TUv8QwNm One can easily realize how false the claim is. Quoted tweet sums up in brief how the 97% is wrongfully inferred. https://t.co/JJvv1ePfP
RT @Canadia56668243: @nbreavington This is the study that ridiculous 97% claim came from. Read the abstract and do the math. Spoiler alert:…
RT @Canadia56668243: @nbreavington This is the study that ridiculous 97% claim came from. Read the abstract and do the math. Spoiler alert:…
@nbreavington This is the study that ridiculous 97% claim came from. Read the abstract and do the math. Spoiler alert: It’s not 97% https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV
Here is the study the clowns refer to with their 97% BS. Latest headlines head straight for a 100% consensus on bought up MSM. Quoted tweet sums up where we stand and how far we're from truth. https://t.co/95TUv8QwNm https://t.co/JJvv1ePfPe #ClimateScam
RT @Canadia56668243: @wideawake_media Here’s the study the 97% lie came from. Read the abstract and do the math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV
@wideawake_media Here’s the study the 97% lie came from. Read the abstract and do the math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV
@TalentlessJoe fake research - https://t.co/CD0wvTMWNW which was thoroughly debunked for its "unprofessional and faulty methodology" https://t.co/xPOo5ogrEu
@1ts4v1b3 @GeraldKutney @Twitter Why don't you read the paper, rather than acting like an absolute liar? Help us out, why are you arguing WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 😂😜🤣 https://t.co/pwJicGln6O
@Risemelbourne Have you ever looked into the 97% claim? Here’s the paper it came from. Read the abstract and do the math. https://t.co/GVkPk03zeV
RT @aSinister: @D_Breadboard @ItsTheAtmospher @JunkScience Golly we all see you clown https://t.co/5aj7ubIeKJ https://t.co/P2vCnSwUM9 ht…
RT @aSinister: @D_Breadboard @ItsTheAtmospher @JunkScience Meanwhile I have consensus on my side https://t.co/5aj7ubIeKJ https://t.co/P2v…
@olivergorus @bundestag_tweet Der Treibhauseffekt ist eine wissenschaftliche! Theorie ( = gilt als Fakt). Sie können den mit einfachsten Hausmitteln selbst nachweisen. https://t.co/V8bwVYK8Ow. Die Studie von Cook et al. von 2003 ist übrigens mehrfach bes
@ProfMarkMaslin @Global_Witness @elonmusk @Twitter Probably because they lie so much? Show where "99.9% of scientists" appears in Lynas's paper: https://t.co/2Tp297nPw2 Next, show where "97% of scientists" appears in Cook 2013. https://t.co/qLkg80upDM Yo
Artykuł Cooka i wsp. https://t.co/LcENwu3vsn z 2013 roku wydawał się najbardziej znaczącą publikacją, która spopularyzowała liczbę 97%. Autorzy zastosowali metodologię podobną do Oreskesa, ale oparli swoją analizę na abstraktach, https://t.co/Er0oEfhPai
https://t.co/1vldQJjaES 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.
@Flyck66 @cutehoors @LeonDotJpg @conormlally @Padraiccleary https://t.co/dbMGjKwcFe https://t.co/fo0IanBVHE 1. 928 scientific papers analyzed btwn 1993-04, not a single one going against consensus view of human caused climate change 2. 11,944 analyzed 94-
@maewca8 @Hubert62070578 @jakubwiech Jeśli te wytłumaczenia to za mało to w internecie jest sporo metanaliz jak np. ta https://t.co/vXmzkEgdVL Na ponad 12000 artykułów i prac o klimacie, tylko 0.7% zaprzeczało atropogenicznemu ociepleniu klimatu.
"Il 97% degli scienziati concorda sul cambiamento climatico causato dall'uomo." Qui l'articolo da cui è stato tratta la percentuale. https://t.co/3qPs3tacWi L'articolo però non dice questo.
@AlexEpstein 99% of 32% agree!!* https://t.co/2tVnqQ7qVi
@ErbVolker @_devadoe_ @SpaceBohne Für derartige Mondzahlen („97% der Wissenschaftler“) wurde bisher das Nonsens-Paper des Kommunikationswissenschaftlers John Cook herangezogen, das diese Schlussfolgerung gar nicht zieht. Offenbar gab es ein Update dazu, da
@MarkusSiebert5 @tschoemitoe @ulfposh @welt https://t.co/212QeHAf0f "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW" Dh., höchstens 33,6 % könnten Ja gesagt haben. Das sind keine 97%. + wenn >80% Wissenschaftler bei einem so komplexen Th
@LiamHogan17 @JuliaHB1 @AaronDelays No it isn't, please take the time to do a bit of research on the figure then get back to me and tell me I am wrong..... https://t.co/bg0Xdrg0dS https://t.co/JUFQOUDY8z. https://t.co/JUFQOUDY8z. https://t.co/idjFEpDpos ht
@AaronDelays @JuliaHB1 So here's a couple of links for the 'SOURCE' crown too lazy or too programmed to look it up themselves. https://t.co/bg0Xdrg0dS https://t.co/QrHgCKLtCf https://t.co/JUFQOUDY8z. https://t.co/idjFEpDpos
@PaulCrossley32 @AaronDelays @JuliaHB1 Yes, I will - and did. Enjoy a few facts. https://t.co/JUFQOUDY8z https://t.co/idjFEpDpos https://t.co/VSYRpw9AYn
@phancophanco @AaronDelays @JuliaHB1 Here you go, have a read. It's actually 97.2% of 32.6% This is how they doctor the figures and say 97%, the same happened for the latest 99% one. https://t.co/JUFQOUDY8z https://t.co/idjFEpDpos There are loads more
RT @FamedCelebrity: I give readers one guess of the fallacy used here. Bonus points for (a) spelling it correctly, and (b) answering with f…
RT @FamedCelebrity: I give readers one guess of the fallacy used here. Bonus points for (a) spelling it correctly, and (b) answering with f…
I give readers one guess of the fallacy used here. Bonus points for (a) spelling it correctly, and (b) answering with flair.
@FamedCelebrity A blog is NOT a scientific paper. https://t.co/czEyV1FtIt https://t.co/qrGx4QhY4e https://t.co/yWWmRgmbaz https://t.co/lUZlZsma8S https://t.co/39WsrRP5d8 Stop denying climate science, and learn it instead ! https://t.co/oSgEoN39VP https://t
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 @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
@NigelStarr1 @RoofisHigh @AfpFactuel Il y a un consensus, que vous le vouliez ou non, certes, il n'est pas de 100%, mais dépasse facilement les 90% https://t.co/BXvY4IglrO https://t.co/GDvlsRPb8X https://t.co/fGz5CizKDO https://t.co/fGieD5vpJ2 https:/
RT @olivergorus: Quelle u.a.: https://t.co/PF4Qu7OJPF und: https://t.co/TeWCcic7ex
@RGeissberger @svs1946 @AbbesKlaus https://t.co/nXfqFssc0K Und hier hast du das Statistik Machwerk, wie man von 11.944 Studien zur Erderwärmung auf 1.381 runterrechnet und nur 39, die sich explizit dagegen wenden, in Beziehung zu den 1.381 setzt, um auf 97
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…
@james_keil @ThruNoiz @PaulineC73 @MatthewWielicki @curryja They only included papers which expressed an opinion. Seems sensible. Your numbers are all wrong!! https://t.co/mSR6fvsqVD
@IanCrossland Now this is recommended only for experts in detecting BS... 2013 Cook at Queensland U with volunteer students examine 11,944 abstracts related to AGW How did he get 97% consensus? https://t.co/dTLqsRkpX2
@TPostMillennial 2013 Cook et al at Queensland U with volunteer students examine 11,944 abstracts but only 4.014 where considered and of this 3.896 confirmed "Climate Change". 3.896/4.014 = 97% https://t.co/dTLqsRkpX2 but https://t.co/mSuKgK65IY
These and similar memes cherrypick the consensus studies... https://t.co/mqx3Sj1OdW
@JamesDe34061167 @_HughJasole_ @arrpucks @AnthonyRolles @ellymelly @tanne1122 You misunderstood the conclusion. Please please read the entire tweet by clicking on it. Out of 11 944 xxxxxxx 7930 had not position for or against. The studies were about the
@ReelIs4 @ignacio_sevil @arigotch @SellerTill @thenedwilliams @jefferinc @elonmusk @EvaVlaar 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change, and there’s a strong correlation with expertise (i.e. scientists who publish
@random57843961 @Sawomir36414908 @JkmMikke https://t.co/s2tUHy9Ef3 badanie przeprowadzone przez @johnfocook klimatologa z University of Western Australia
@Louis_Hissink @NicoleMoinat @Mellie1967 Die van TU delft? https://t.co/4v9gjSVxyM De 97% komt uit een onderzoek van John Cook: https://t.co/HZsda7HMdx Allemaal omgekocht?
@136101521a @TheDisproof @JusperMachogu @MatthewWielicki So, you're just going to ignore the 7930 papers that are explained in the Discussion section, the section you're apparently afraid to read?.. https://t.co/wZOzj4ozfl
@JusperMachogu @136101521a @TheDisproof @MatthewWielicki Why would 👉YOU👈 want a science illiterate to do science? Do you call a plumber for dental work, too? https://t.co/mqx3Sj1OdW https://t.co/LwgRUCg1Xm
RT @TaroIstok: @136101521a @TheDisproof @JusperMachogu @MatthewWielicki Why would I pay a science illiterate to do science? https://t.co/E…