/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10218468
>97% indicated that humans have an effect on the climate. These 97% do not agree on the extent to which human activity does or will ultimately affect the climate.
Incorrect. Any study that minimizes the human contribution was counted as a rejection of the consensus by Cook's study that found 97% consensus. The studies that actually look at the levels of contribution agree that humans are the main cause.

>A lot of the scientists in the skeptic community (including those whose work is counted in that 97% number) believe the impact humans have is around 1C and disagree with the Chicken Little prophecies the alarmists are stating.
The same study asked scientists to self rate their own papers. 97% of the self-ratings said that their papers supported the consensus. It's one thing to make incorrect claims about the study, it's another to make claims that were anticipated and directly refuted in the study itself. Did you read it before trying to tell people what's in it? Or do you just make shit up?