@Dominiquetaegon The Great Reset is predicated on the lie that 97% of scientists believe global warming is manmade (link below). https://t.co/JZ1C1312Tc
@FChecker76 Those are what many might actually refer to as alternative facts. I mean come on, “climate warming saves lives” 🤦♂️ The scientific consensus might actually be something quite different from what you think, see here: https://t.co/VWj60UYcrm
@KMarx1987 @FLecitoyen @debit_downer @JJuteux Recherches déjà faites: Cook et al. Votre 'consensus' c'est 97% de 33%.... Q.E.D. https://t.co/sCY9egpEnG https://t.co/o3N5S3D39P
@debit_downer @FLecitoyen @JJuteux Est-ce que 'tous les autres scientifiques' inclut le 66% qui ne se prononcent pas en faveur de AGW dans Cook et al. ? Je vous rappelle que cette étude est également incluse sur votre source de Nasa. https://t.co/sCY9eg8
@Veritatem2021 @JusticeTrudeau @MumClimate Here's more -- not Lynas. https://t.co/n4xUrKMyIK
You can only convince people to willingly give up freedoms and rights by convincing them the alternative is far worse. The Great Reset is predicated on NetZero agenda, which is predicated on the lie that 97% of scientists believe global warming is manmade.
@francesweetman @ncostafurtado Its not a conspiracy theory when the @wef promote what we accuse them of doing, when royalty and politicians support it, when governments are willing to destroy our economies predicated on a lie in order to implament it's Res
@BernieSpofforth Researchers looked at abstract results from 11,944 scientific papers. Rejected 66.4% that expressed no position. 97% of remaining 33.6% supported claim to varying degrees. Just 32.6% of total sample. Just 8.2% explicitly agreed global warm
@AlainLe89396509 @mkeljgt500kr @AGU_Eos A crucial part of the scientific method is to verify your sources. David Siegel is no scientist, nor is the link you shared a scientific outcome. Here's some: https://t.co/Sc6yUihcnk https://t.co/8ZEE9415MS https:/
@elliemaygottasa @SJames61173519 @RNCResearch You're projecting your illiteracy is not the defense you think it is. Her words are clear, accurate, and supported by evidence. I will cite evidence proving she's accurate. If you have a credible source rebutt
אני לא מאמין שאני צריך עדיין להגיד את זה:
@Kenneth72712993 2013 - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature https://t.co/8wpMWYZxFS 2021 - Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature https://t.co/
RT @MagChange_73: @loder_shawn LOL Le fameux 'consensus'.... https://t.co/sCY9eg8BlG https://t.co/2FnWiVybVC
@loder_shawn LOL Le fameux 'consensus'.... https://t.co/sCY9eg8BlG https://t.co/2FnWiVybVC
@sinnoby @aSovrynVagabond @ShelbyZR1 Tenez pauvre résidu d'école publique, le tableau de Cook et al. D'où provient le fameux '97% de consensus'. https://t.co/sCY9egpEnG https://t.co/DVnV3wJtpY
@GMCBerlin1789 @Mattens13 @Hans31995447 @datapope @El_Haginho Hier Mal eine Meta Studie zum Thema. https://t.co/DUgYDlsIFc
@Dominiquetaegon @LozzaFox NetZero and the Orwellian Great Reset are predicated on false claim 97% of scientists agreed global warming was manmade. Actual % (based on study of 11,944 scientific papers) who supported claim to varrying degrees was 32.6%. Jus
@Dante27455639 FALSO CONCENSO! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0JA3R 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcX0Ed 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2qkIi 2013 Cook 3.896
@MarekAdamJan1 @basiukiewiczpaw @rafalhubert W pracach wziął udział między innymi John Cook, znany https://t.co/cYVIb4sX8y. z badania Cook i in., 2013, w którym również stwierdzono konsensus ekspertów odnośnie antropogenicznej zmiany klimatu na poziomie ok
@becka_newell @MrGlass61145253 @Graysmith771 @philashton68 @calvinrobinson Please don't expect basic educational standards from these lot. This is the study. https://t.co/375d6d7GQp It's own abstract says this: Our analysis indicates that the number of
In framing credible public policy "The process of reaching consensus" would require substantially more than 14% of scientists engaging with efforts to demonstrate a scientific consensus when a minority of scientific papers endorse a concept. https://t.co
RT @tmorrisuk: @liz_churchill1_ The @wef Great Reset is predicated on the lie '97% of scientists agree global warming is man made'. Only by…
@Timcast Tim please do a little bit of research on 97% consensus NASA https://t.co/Eftzc0JA3R 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcX0Ed 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2qkIi 2013 Cook 3.896/4
RT @tmorrisuk: @liz_churchill1_ The @wef Great Reset is predicated on the lie '97% of scientists agree global warming is man made'. Only by…
@liz_churchill1_ The @wef Great Reset is predicated on the lie '97% of scientists agree global warming is man made'. Only by controlling the narative, and convincing us the alternative to an Orwellian future is global catastrophe, can they impose control.
@SirTill3r @Dicrocoeliose @GioD82 @klatschase @Luisamneubauer @c_lindner https://t.co/qbgJZp31Xw Ich erspare ihnen das Suchen gerne. Wenn man die Zwei drittel, die keine Position beziehen, einfach als Befürworter mitzählt, ist das schlicht und einfach gel
@JamesMelville NetZero and The Great Reset are predicated on the lie that the science is settled, pushed by those who broke the system in '07, kept on life support with endless QE until CBDC is in place. The alternative is peasants and pitchfalks. https:
@CSkidmoreUK @ChiefExecCCC Parlimentary committee chastised last government for having no idea how much 2030 NetZero target will cost, and no idea of it's impact. And neither the Committee nor the government actuall bothered to check validy of the claim th
@UxbEconomist07 Parlimentary committee chastised government for having no idea how much 2030 NetZero target will cost, and no idea of it's impact. And neither the Committee nor the government actuall bothered to question the validy of the claim all this cr
@dgb093 @ToroDeArena En las propias palabras de Cook, el 66,4% de los resúmenes reales no expresaron ninguna posición sobre el cambio climático. El "97% de consenso" se basa en el 32,6% de los resúmenes que respaldan a AGW. Es una tontería estadística. ht
RT @tmorrisuk: @BernieSpofforth NetZero & The Great Reset are predicated on lie that 97% of scientists believe global warming is man made.…
@BernieSpofforth NetZero & The Great Reset are predicated on lie that 97% of scientists believe global warming is man made. By conflating man made polutents which can be removed by by planting 3bn trees, with global temperature, which is cyclical, they
Europe's only chance to avoid economic catastrophe is to decople itself from the U.S. and reject the science is settled lie, on which NetZero and The Great Reset (vasalage to avoid catastrophe) are predicated. @GiorgiaMeloni https://t.co/UA8IRShX8H
@janboehm @georgloesel 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' John Cook et al 2013 https://t.co/MvBP2BFbL2
@Olli399 @mike1963payne @RachelReevesMP 2/ which anyone who's either read it or is referencing it should know. The actual paper is here: https://t.co/B0u0dAffmU And here: https://t.co/Tg9j50D8O1 So here we are, we have an idiot referencing a paper which
RT @tmorrisuk: @UxbEconomist07 ‘97% of scientists agree with manmade global warming’ lie! Researchers looked at abstract rsults from 11,944…
@UxbEconomist07 ‘97% of scientists agree with manmade global warming’ lie! Researchers looked at abstract rsults from 11,944 scientific papers. Rejected 66.4% that expressed no position. 97% of the remaining 33.6% supported claim, which is just 32.6% of to
@FreddyBrown1984 @jon_trickett In 2015 a reply to cook's 97% consensus. https://t.co/2Cuz0xGnyA
@K4Climate Buddy, I will relinquish to your link. I wish we could sit in a real room and talk. https://t.co/sA0Ker820C #discuss #debate #realpeoplerealproblems
RT @K4Climate: @dgelles There is no consensus on climate change. 86% of scientists failed to respond to authors of the best known effort t…
@dgelles There is no consensus on climate change. 86% of scientists failed to respond to authors of the best known effort to demonstrate a consensus. Those who did engage did not claim that climate change was dangerous, or mention anything about a climat
@Mayk_vehemente @CarRobDar @sllromano @AndreuEscriva Tanto "se silencia" que se hacen estudios del consenso. Pero entiendo que le sea más divertido creer cosas. Lo hace sentir relevante ¿no? https://t.co/t7Z030VjWZ
@latimeralder "Nobody at all was asked the direct question." Did you read the study? https://t.co/fhAYHXZNSx In addition to the abstracts: "We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers...Among self-rated papers that stated a position
@davinator_t @grantrobertb @RepAndyBiggsAZ @tan123 Here is the actual study that the lie stems from, it does not say that 97% agreed with climate change data. It says nothing even close to that. https://t.co/xuWqI39pQ0
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…
RT @LaurelCoons: Climate Change: 🌍Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference…
@IanCrossland @AldoButtazzoni @DrewHLive False Consensus! GlobalWarming/ClimetChange NASA 97%=97% https://t.co/Eftzc0rqPJ 2004 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 2009 Zimmerman 75/77=97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP 2010 Anderegg 97%-98% https://t.co/
@LCYO143 @PeterBorbe Also sage ich gar nicht, dass Sachbeschädigung mit Klimawandel zu tun hätte? Das ist ja ein Ding. Der Grund für die aktuelle Erwärmung ist nachgewiesen. Es sind die Emissionen des Menschen: https://t.co/FSRz3i5oCP "Natürlich" wäre ei
@alext342 Il ne suffit pas de dire que tu tapes à côté, pour que ça soit le cas, regarde simple démonstration : "Pas mal d'autres scientifiques » → moins de 3 % en 2013, moins d'1 % en 2022. (https://t.co/Et1wvo8u7J.)
@FakeFelipeK Ahora lee los "estudios" del 97% de consenso... NASA 97% = 97% https://t.co/AKj9jMBKl6 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 Zimmerman 75/77 = 97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP Anderegg ?=97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua Cook 3.896/4.014=97%
@elonmusk @mariaelisasmith You can read the "studies" 97% of the scientist agree on AGW NASA 97% = 97% https://t.co/AKj9jMBKl6 Oreskes 928/928=100% https://t.co/qBlYCcERq5 Zimmerman 75/77 = 97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP Anderegg ?=97%-98% https://t.co/5aKQY2
@XanTheProscrito @JJ_GAC @AAretxaba @bateko71 Primero, eso no es una evidencia, es una declaración. Segundo, de más de 11.000 estudios basados en evidencias, solo un 0,7% niega el cambio climático antropogénico. Los números no te acompañan: https://t.co/Ar
@periodistasxlv Un metaestudio evaluó en 2013 el grado de consenso científico sobre el calentamiento global. Resultado, 97% de acuerdo. BTW... los metaestudios son el método científico llevado al límite. Game over, Mr. Giaever. ¡Ah! ¡Lo olvidaba! Aquí está
@mikdona @Veritatem2021 @pinangodan @TullimonstrumC @latimeralder More nonsense. Nuccitelli and Cook's survey stated that the majority (66.4%) of climate papers they analysed did not contain any endorsement of the AGW theory. A minority (32.6%) did. htt
@bleasdale_r The scientific evidence to challenge the present "consensus" on climate change is censored. On the consensus point, the 97%, it is for the most part derived from one single study - John Cook et al 2013 Here it is - you may notice some chicaner
@MrGlass61145253 @estherk_k https://t.co/QQHNtXuwzd Read this !
@Incognoscible_ @IvanAle98358888 @aliciacgviolin 97% de los científicos concretamente... https://t.co/Gygwtor9nw Naturalmente hay discusiones sobre prioridades, factores más importantes, etc. Pero el consenso es generalizado por mucho que se niegue...
@Corky50456 @N0trealnow @jakeshieldsajj https://t.co/hbN6Zrt6RX here you go, I'm done with this convo btw, you won't believe this one either. Have a good life!
@Lukewearechange Sprinkle some truth on the FAKE 97% CONSENSUS Zimmerman 10.257 online poll 77 on Q2 75 confirmed "yes" 75/77 = 97% https://t.co/2YAbQT3ksP Anderegg 903 convinced 472 unconvinced but 97% https://t.co/5aKQY28bua Cook 12.465 abstracts 3.896/
@antianaakim @Sertan70725888 @acikistihbarat @acikistihbarat %97 yazan makale bile bile boyle birsey idda etmiyor. Tamamen carpitma bu rakam. Makale burada. Bunu okuyup Bilim adamlari bu konuda hem fikir demek "2+2=5" demekle ayni. Abstract'i okuyun yeter.
@Bigal38143680 @JamesMelville That is not entirely true. It has been established that mankind is affecting the climate. I trust the science. https://t.co/ayq2sSAM1C
@Chrisp1776 From 2013: “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” https://t.co/lPDamnNs2q Read up buttercup
@Tcaddy5 @SteveMo85793304 I always send this (old!) article, which is still very valid: https://t.co/ayq2sSAM1C
@alvaropmr @RMadrid_ista No veo la referencia de la encuesta publicada. Es importante porque el dato previo del supuesto 97% de consenso es falso. El artículo hacía una pobre revisión en una sola base de datos y el resultado realmente era 97%... ¡de la ter
@stephen1e4 @PeterDClack Doesn’t mean anything. There’s a whole bunch of denier propaganda. You’re either gullible or intentionally spreading misinformation. https://t.co/rbpLAAfrYf That’s a different paper. That’s this one: https://t.co/QbttV5amHY
@BrojeviMaja @3ABEPA Ovde imamo malo veci broj pregledanih radova ~ 11000 https://t.co/gPjNbFBI16 A ova nova studija koja je pregledala ~3000 radova(nasumicno odabranih od 88000 koliko ih je ukupno bilo) posle 2012 je nasla da je koncenzus 99% https://
@BrianSearle10 @ICLRCanada “Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). “ https://t.co/AxmkPgh8m2
@SuperTRev166 @Krommsan @77_steeze Once again post a source, peer reviewed if possible. “ Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW( anthropogenic global warming) 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” https://t.
Scientific agreement on anthropogenic global warming is (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of scientists indicate the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity https:/
@45_days @BBQRON @CarlKonigel Er is wel degelijk een consensus onder klimaatwetenschappers. Check https://t.co/F1o8Pv0vuR
RT @nDante: Quiero dejar esto por aquí para futuras referencias. https://t.co/Ieo2NodDH5 https://t.co/mlGXWRtpKe
@OneAndOnlyZel @SteveTobak In case you want to actually verify that speculation of yours https://t.co/J55GSRHwzj
@brithume These kids need to read the report that created the 97% fantasy. It excluded two-thirds of papers solely because they didn't take a position on global warming. That is not how you prove consensus. https://t.co/U9I4dX46rY
@mauriejmanning @RichardWByers @brithume The 97% number is a lie! Here is the ACTUAL origin of the 97% number. Note that the study threw out two-thirds of the papers that it reviewed because they did not take a position on global warming. https://t.co/U
Quiero dejar esto por aquí para futuras referencias. https://t.co/Ieo2NodDH5 https://t.co/mlGXWRtpKe
@champion_cars @albertointernet @PhilAMellows "Algunos" son el 97% que coinciden en que se está produciendo un cambio climático desde el XIX, principalmente provocado por la acción del hombre y que está teniendo y tendrá graves consecuencias. Quantifying
@FrisoHeidinga @marcelcrok @ClintelNED Debunked theorieën? Dit paper: https://t.co/wn4tZPKExh Van Moore uit 2013 waar het getal 97% voor het eerst opduikt? Heb je het gelezen en begrijp je wat ze daar hebben geturft? Men denkt dat het opinies zijn van
@Bigtechcrybaby and it being a threat. https://t.co/oHIFSpWsir https://t.co/lo8Gj6l6zX https://t.co/Ohx0B10jrD But also there has been 6 different studies into what the publications conclude themselves. They all came to the conclusion that the literature
@UnioneCivicaVi @Agenzia_Ansa https://t.co/iDjIB2DBED Sempre se sai leggere, ecco la meta analisi sul consenso scientifico al riguardo.
@Autumn__Fox @LongSeanSilver0 @JamesMelville Fair point - Forbes claimed that for example the number of 97% isn't accurate because of James Cook who made the study on the claim of those 97% (https://t.co/YNYeySF4cQ) not specifying to what degree humans hav
@scarednomore @MikeCarlton01 Oh and here is a start https://t.co/XalNqOAgtI
@NisseHu37850883 @redhead57 @AnthonyHomer15 @GazJo251 @Mats_Of_Sweden @OMacMan @RealDeniseWelch https://t.co/AbiezDDiJ3 Apparently humans can change the climate
RT @K4Climate: Good morning climate alarmists! Did you know that 86% of publishing climate scientists didn't bother responding to Cook's v…
RT @K4Climate: @WeLnever @GeraldKutney @DawnTJ90 @Jakegsm @daveguitarclark @DannySh44640243 @KHayhoe Anyone who has been lied to about 97%…