.@DanaRohrabacher And even Tol's (flawed) revised estimate admits that ***91%*** of climate studies agree on AGW:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus …
-
-
-
@DistantOcean the fraud is the repeated claim 97% of ALL scientists agree. Even the claim for all authors of a selected group is suspect -
.
@DanaRohrabacher Even your own chosen expert (Tol) agrees that climate change is man-made, and puts the agreement percentage at 91%. -
@DistantOcean all I know is he says he was misrepresented, that he did not support conclusions of IPCC report -
.
@DanaRohrabacher "...climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." (2/2) -
@DistantOcean there have been cycles, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, moving glaciers & ice caps, hot spells&cold ones long before humans - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher Who lied? Doran & Zimmerman, Anderegg et al. or Cook et al.? Page number of lie? BTW, Dr. Tol is an economist, not a sci. -
@DumbSci the Russian scientists may have mishandled their disagreement with the IPCC conclusions about Man made Global Warming theory -
@DanaRohrabacher Did you mean to reply to another tweet? This isn't a retraction of your accusation that NASA, NOAA,etc. are "lying". -
@DumbSci sorry, I’m trying to handling too many tweet debates at once. -
@DanaRohrabacher OK. Later, please ponder if a true patriot would accuse NASA, NOAA, etc. of lying when they tell you what scientists think. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@Mark_Brooks if he is so famous why did those claiming 97% believe they could get away with misrepresenting his position? Arrogance I guess -
@DanaRohrabacher Tol rated 3 of his abstracts as "strong endorsement". More "misrepresentations" in other direction:https://twitter.com/DumbSci/status/639193424369860608 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@DanaRohrabacher Quote: "The number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@DanaRohrabacher 97% based on study of 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article … (From@NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ …)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher All papers rated by the 97% authors: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt … Which papers did they lie about? But check abstracts first.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.