Wild Cobra

Actually, I was responding tothis idea: with: Less livable... Less livable is what caused my "LOL." From my perspective, the mortality rate came in play later, changing the goal post.

I don't know if they mean serious or not. The way the statement uses weasel words, for all I know, they accept significant changes even if we mitigate AGW 100%. I don’t try to assume a biased conclusion to their statement as most people do. Don’t you see, that’s my point about this statement. It cannot be wrong by the pure meaning of the words, but it implies that global warming will cause problems. Then you have those dead set that AGW is the primary cause, deniers of the possibility the outlier 5% or less might be the truth. I do not deny that the <5% might be right, like most of you here obviously do. That statement is too open for interpretations, and it is reason why I deplore the people who write such things. Why can’t they write the material in a strait manner without the built in ambiguity? I know science is uncertain, but then that ambiguity needs to be made as such. Not in a manner that suggests one point within that ambiguity. Hmm... Did they say greenhouse gasses must be mitigated? Do we really know in the limited context seen? Did they quantify how much mitigation? See what I mean about assuming things out of the ambiguity? What if they didn't mean the consensus view in this case? What if they meant soot, land use changes, or something else? Are greenhouse gasses the only forcing changes due to man? Why do I think they said it? If I answer you, won't I be chastised for not sourcing my reason? Personally, I think they do mean primarily greenhouse gas emissions, don't limit it to that, and I think they are appealing to authority. The authority of the IPCC. The consensus of hundreds of organizations is real. However, if you ever read their reasons, it comes down to this. Nearly all of them are appealing to the authority of the IPCC. They in effect, become nothing but one big echo chamber. Have you ever taken a list of scientific organizations within the consensus and actually read their statements regarding global warming? In almost every case, they base their reasons on the IPCC assessment reports. So... My final answer... I think they say we need to mitigate warming because that's what the authority says that they listen to. That's my answer. As for the "if not serious" part? I can only guess. I can come up with several reasons but I'm not a mind reader. I think, more than anything else, they will not seem reputable by the consensus if they don't at least appear to support the consensus. What they really believe, I don't know, but maybe that’s why their statement is so ambiguous.

I went back through this thread looking for something else, and I missed this post before and need to address it. OK, you can find a vanity publication that doesn't peer review Therefore all vanity publications do not peer review... Isn't this a logical fallacy? If you actually go to the publisher’s web site: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/ Look around, you will see they peer review. Maybe calling it a vanity site is wrong if all vanity sites do not peer review. Either way, it is a logical fallacy. You are wrong to assume that. I forget what words the article used, but I got the impression these were people on the last weeks or months of their lives anyway. I see it as a simple fact that the slightly warmer conditions was like the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. That their life just ended slightly sooner. Maybe I’m wrong, but even beyond that, what if most of this is natural? What if the primary anthropogenic caused rise in temperatures are due to the heat island effects? How do we combat that, without tearing down cities and restoring the natural landscape? I started this part of the thread by responding the idea that 2 degrees was less hospitable, and laughed because England would be a nicer place for most if the average year round temperature did rise 2 degrees. Then the goalpost was changed with these heat related deaths. Another post asks if I changed my mind. I think it was clear I agreed the 2.1% increase in deaths per degree was plausible. By the definitions alarmist, warmer, denier, skeptic, etc... I most closely fit the skeptic category. Why is it I am attacked in such rude manners by everyone? Is that conducive to good debating? I do not deny science. I do question the validity of many studies and conclusions, but that is not denial. I see more denial... denial of proper science... in those towing the consensus by using linked material they obviously don't comprehend. One very big logical fallacy... Appealing to authority! I like to be able to take a topic and explain my reasoning in my own words. Too often, I am asked to back up material that is simple basic science, then chastised for not sourcing my material. To me, that is like having to source 1 + 1 = 2! Get with it people. Learn the basics of these sciences if you are going to debate them. Learn things like what RE, GWP, etc actually represent. Stop appealing to authority!

I disagree with that because "significant" wasn't necessarily meant as "serious." To substitute "serious" may go beyond what the author can account for, and in my opinion, becomes a lie. I believe if the author wanted to use a more pointed word, they would have. I believe anyone substituting a word that doesn't have the definitions suitable to the research results is guilty of disinformation, and integrity is lost. There is an example I gave earlier that did exactly that. In post 112, iNow has a graphic with the bar graphs and uses "largely." This is a lie by the creator of that graph, which turns out to be a liberal activist site: http://www.progressorcollapse.com/98-of-most-published-climate-scientists-argue-climate-change-is-man-made-but-who-cares-what-does-sarah-palin-say/ I pointed out that none of the source material can justify the word "largely," and one of the sources explicitly uses "significant." I believed I also pointed out that NASA has a page using three sources and lies the same way with the 97% number by saying "mostly" instead of "significant." Again, words have meaning. When you change the meaning of a conclusion, the conclusion is now unreliable and quite possible a lie. In these two cases, they are lies. I will again contend that anyone purposely manipulating the language of research paper results when referring to it is unethical, and not to be trusted. As for the statement that actually uses "significant," I am only pointing out the it doesn't automatically mean anything more than what "significant" can be at its lowest threshold. Now that I think about it, my choice of words could have been much better. I often struggle myself with using the best words for something. One reason why I no longer do rapid research and development is because of my inability to write well. It often takes me several attempts to write good material. The other, is the corporation I used to work for relocated, and I wanted to stay in Portland. Please, words have meaning. Don't read into anything they mean more or less than their actual definitions.

Good question, I probably should have elaborated better. Since I have time right now this Sunday, I will give probably more than simple elaboration. I used numbers out of the AR4 for changes from 1750 to 2005, and plotted them on a log curve to make the graph. These numbers are found on page 141 of the AR4, Table 2.1. I used this log formula format in excel for each cell: =C$2*(LN(1+$A94)-LN(1+$A$17)) Of course, the cells change. For example, column A is for the levels in ppm. Column C is the results for CO2. Cell C2 is my constant for the multiplier for CO2 in this case. In column A, row 17 is set to zero. I used several more columns in this sheet as I have the three CO2 formulas shown in TAR along with their CH4 and N2O formulas, and my log variation for each gas. What I did for example is take the difference between the results for 278 ppm, and 379 ppm. I changed cell C2 until this difference between the 278 and 379 was 1.66, as the AR4 claims 1.66 W/m^2 forcing for the change in CO2 from the 278 to 379 ppm. The value of cell C2 became 5.37287300230489. This isn't exactly the formula used by the IPCC. Here are their formulas: The IPCC uses the first of three CO2 formulas with the constant of 5.35. I simply used a version of a log curve so I could get a zero input value. I can replot all this with the different formulas in the graphic. I have them all in the spreadsheet I have pulled up. Plus, I have later found the IPCC assumed value rounded to 1.66 is actually something like 1.655... I don't see too much use in worrying about that small of a change though. I used the same log formulation to plot CH4 and N2O. I used values of CH4 at 0.73 and 1.774 and adjusted the constant to get the 0.48 W/m^2 the AR4 claims. I used 0.27 ppm and 0.319 ppm for N2O adjusting its constant until I had the 0.16 W/m^2 forcing claimed. This gave me the log curves for the three gasses and allows me to approximate the absolute forcing instead of just the flux. CO2 at 379 ppm becomes 31.9 W/m^2. CH4 at 1774 ppb becomes 1.04 W/m^2. N2O at 319 ppb becomes 1.17 W/m^2. Then I plotted for RE (Radiative efficiency.) I took another column with only two values for each gas. CO2 I used 379 and 379.001. CH4 I used 1.774 and 1.775. N2O I used 0.319 and 0.32. I let Excel to plot those slopes, and those are the three strait lines on my graph. If you notice, they are close to the AR4 RE numbers. The AR4 has CO2 at 1.4 x 10-5, CH4 at 3.7 x 10-4, and N2O at 3.03 x 10-3. Table T8.2 is on page 33 of the AR4. Table 2.14 on page 212 also has these numbers. It is important to understand that both the RE and GWP numbers use the instantaneous slope from the starting gas value. There is a widespread illusion out there that CH4 is stronger than CO2, because both the radiative efficiency and global warming potential numbers are greater. RE... This is based on adding 1 ppbv to a gas. With CO2 at 379000 ppb, adding 1 ppb is only increassing it by 0.000264%. However, adding 1 ppb to CH4 is increasing it by 0.056%. GWP... This is even worse, because it uses mass changes instead of volume changes. Therefore, it is an effect where equal mass changes at this point are another 2.75 times greater yet than volume changes. These numbers are misleading unless you understand exactly what they mean. I will contend the IPCC does this intentionally to influence the non scientific policy makers. Sorry for being so longwinded at that. I misread the intent of the 4-5 degrees, but off that graph, based the 25 W/m^2 as being about 4-5 degrees. With CO2 at around 30 W/m^2 total forcing, if you assume a 6 degree value for CO2, that means there is about a 1 degree increase per 5 W/m^2 increase. I once found the original paper that supports this. I forget where it is, I probably have it saved. However, Al Gore uses it in his presentations. Here is one of Al Gore's graphs from An Inconvenient Truth I saved in my photobucket: As you see, he has a CO2 forcing of around 30 W/m^2 total for CO2 above other forcings that are around 230 W/m^2. He shows this to be close to the 6 degrees I speak of. My question asking how CH4 could cause such warming, along with the graph, was to show it would take a ridiculously large amount of CH4 plotted on a log curve. Now of course, I used a different formula than the AR4 does, which may change the numbers significantly from consensus for CH4. The IPCC uses the one I circled in orange on the graphic I supplied from TAR table 6.2. I suspect the difference between CO2 and CH4 is less if using their formula, but CO2 will still be a stronger gas. CH4 also, will change more and more logarithmic as the CH4 levels exceed N2O levels in magnitudes, rather than being close in level. The formula is as odd as it is to account for CH4/N2O overlap. In my opinion, the close to pure log curve is the better way to plot it, but that's just my opinion. Maybe someday, you can convince me to plot these with the different formulas. OK... Did I answer things to you satisfaction? I'm open to questions. Damn, I hope I caught my spelling and other error… Just explained it, see above. As for why is it log? The whole climate community agrees it is primarily log. just look at the formulas above from the IPCC TAR.

Are you refering to John or me? I'm not the one trying to change a definition.

So if I read that correctly, the increase in mortality is 2.1% per degree. To me, this means if this summer was 2 degrees above baseline, the deaths are normally 11 to 16 less than the 540 to 760 number in the artcle. Does that sound right? Are we going to assign all this to antropogenic warming? How much is natural variations... This science is still not settled in that regard, is it!

I am not ignoring that. How do you come to such a conclusion? I well repeat. "Significant" does not allow someone to change the intent to "mostly" or "largely." Words have meaning. Does your definition automatically imply either mostly, or largely?

The implication of this graph I made years back is over most peoples heads. It surprises most people methane is so low, because the alarmists keep saying it is a stronger greenhouse gas. To imply such a deception, they have to use made up metrics by the climate community like "radiative efficiency" and "global warming potential." Few people actually understand what these metrics really are, but go "Oh My God!" when they are told the numbers. I was waiting for someone to challenge it, but it appears we have no takers. And... I was not holding my breath, thank God. I like this: 4.1.1 To evaluate possible policy options, it is useful to know the relative radiative effect (and, hence, potential climate effect) of equal emissions of each of the greenhouse gases. The concept of relative Global Warming Potentials (GWP) has been developed to take into account the differing times that gases remain in the atmosphere. https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf Am I taking that out of context? You decide. The problem is the GWP doesn't account for anything but the 1 ppb addition to current levels calculated from RE (radiative efficiency.) Policy makers, not actually understanding the sciences think it continues to project linearly when in fact, it is primarily a log function. Plus, while RE uses volume, GWP uses mass. Since CH4 has a molar mass of 16.0425 g/mol and CO2 a molar mass of 44.0095 g/mol, this skews the numbers even more for those not completely understanding the facts of science around it. We are now adding 2-3/4 times more CH4 than CO2 for the comparison... Perfectly geared to sway policy makers...

OK, so you accept what is said, by a for profit publication that uses sensationalism. I get it. Most people do. That's how they sell their product. Is asking for a reference, for baseline camparisons unresonable, before taking what they say at face value?

No, not at all. How does it compare to cooler summers? Did I miss year by year comparisons, or is it missing? Attribute the deaths too? The article did mention the pre existing health of people.

I understand their are uncertainties. That's what science is about. My complaint is not the material using words like significant in all cases. It's when a word is used to imply things outside of reality. My complaint voiced here about the word significant is when people change the word to another one, or use a word that likely leads to a wrong impression. Stick with the facts. Don't inflate it by using a word that has a different definition. It's these habbits that are unethical, and warrants. Using such practices is unethical and the people intentionally doing so lose their integrity, or had none to begin with. Are you phychic? Do you know that's what they mean? If they did, why use "significant" which only means it can be seen or measured? Are you not open to the possibility that those writing that sentance purposely used it in that manner to sugest something that in reality is unlikely to matter? This is why I like to see complete context, not these parroted statements out of context. I see I will have to search for the source. No thanks to you. You have the quotes, but don't link the source... Consider this. What if significant disruptions are likely to occur anyway? That's a pretty broad leap to imply the difference is mans involvement since we know natural climate disruptions occur anyway. I will contend that it will be equally accurate to say: Will you agree this statement is true anyway? Naturally? Without man's influence? Oh my God. I used that as an example to what the non math definition means in ways I assume most people use here. I did link the dictionary definition up, didn't I? Now if you have a special climatology definition for "significat" I'm all ears. Maybe you should read the dictionary definition. Pick any dictionary of your choice. Oxford say: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy: I hope you didn't give the wrong source intentionally. This is what you sourced: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf It does not have that statement. That statement is found here: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm If you read the whole, they clearly base this on greenhouse gasses being the major cause of warming. Too bad they are just appealing to the authority of others. I find this interesting, in regards to your quited sentance: In other words, just giving a statement based on the consensus view. How about some original material to base this on? How about mentioning natural changes of TSI of the sun? LOL... models show water vapor has positive feedback... Of course they do, that's how they are programmed! Yep, in the book I downloaded. So?

Hottest day 90 F. OK.... How solid of a qualifier is "could."

Your appeal to authority talking points makes me laugh. Did you read the 200+ pages and understand it? I just downloaded it. Only read the Executive Summary so far. I did search and verified that only one of your three quotes are in the book. I would like to see the full context of the other two quotes. Do you have the links handy so I don’t have to look them up? Thank-You for the link. I will at least read most of it. I am appalled by the way the climate science community misuses words. I see it as them fronting an agenda rather than science when they misuse words. Words have meaning. Now in this case, their use of the word significant may be true. However, it is the impression left with people especially when so many publications, blogs, etc will change the word "significant" to something like "most," "largely," etc. when referencing the more reputable sources. Again. Words have meaning. In simple terms, significant only means you can see or measure a difference. In math, if you are using four significant digits, and you change the least significant digit, what percentage of a change is that? Now consider that when the climate scientists are usually bringing up any change measured with three significant digits. What I find in most climate research material is that they are full of weasel words. This makes a paper technically accurate, while implying a different result than can actually be shown.

I though we were speaking of 2 degrees in England. Not Alabama, New York, Texas, etc. Are you suggesting a regional thing is global? What is their summer max? Have you looked it up? I suggest you do... Seriously. Look it up. I see... My deductions can be a logical fallacy, but not yours? Hypocrisy anyone? There could be several reasons, including he’s not part of the alarmist clique. How about also the possibility he doesn't want it behind a paywall? Isn't dismissal of a scientific writing because of prejudicial reasons about the method of publication, a form of scientific denial?

Not all of them did, and no links were give. As for the deliberate changing of a term from significant to largely or mostly. If the science is sound, then why must they mislead? Words have meaning. To improperly use them in scientific conversations or links is either being intellectually dishonest, or ignorant. Again, if the science is sound, why not just state the facts, instead of inflating them? The second graphic had no sourcing, and was compiled by a blogger.

He posted graphics with no sourcing of their origins, and the implication of the graphics are misleading.

LOL... For just 2 degrees? How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable?

What do you call this: What you are doing is like an Ad Hominem attack, but against a publisher. "The paper cannot be good because it's a vanity publication." Please don't say I'm using logical fallacies if you are going to. Shouldn't you be commenting on the paper instead of the publisher? Yep... Logical fallacy in my book. Why are you so caught up in this? I was explaining my reasons why I am classed as a skeptic, but gave reason why I didn't agree that was the right term. Isn't this thread titled "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" Should you be reported for hijacking this thread? Making it about me? Why should I be expected to source my reasons, especially when many are so old. Can you remember why you adopted certain beliefs over the years? Isn't this a thread about us, not science? How do I source myself? I will admit being less than cooperative with you, but that is because I find you rather irritating. You are relentless at not accepting my reasons not to elaborate. I’m not going out of my way to comply with what are obviously, becoming demands. Why should I go out of my way to justify my beliefs to you in such a thread? Now if we are in a thread about solar changes, I will source my material. If we are in a thread about CO2, or other greenhouse gasses, I will source my material. Etc, etc, etc. How about this. Since I am new here, find an old thread you would like my views on and present it to me. Wouldn't a different thread be more appropriate?

OK, I basically addressed the Doran and Zimmerman 2009, but in order. Farnsworth & Lichter: I couldn't find a free article for the 2011 work, but it is very similar to their 2009 work: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Lichter/publication/228124877_The_Structure_of_Evolving_US_Scientific_Opinion_on_Climate_Change_and_its_Potential_Consequences/links/0deec521cea60a1ac7000000 There is really no quantification of what percentage anthropogenic warming is to be considered. Anderegg et al. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf I don't see anything in this paper that distinguishes between any AGW effect to mostly, or even largely. Here is the more definitive one, Doran and Zimmerman. The one I spoke of using the question "significant." Please look up the differences in definitions between "significant" and "largely." They are not equal in meaning. Here is the paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2009EO030002/asset/eost16685.pdf?v=1&t=i1o6v62s&s=1b50f775f812c37cf40d674eff42a1cf27a65294 Seriously... Logical Fallacy Alert... These two question are almost always misconstrued by alarmists: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Anyone understanding the basics will agree temperatures have risen since the 1800, and agree mankind has a significant role in climate change. Again, "significant" does not mean "largely" or "mostly." Isn't using such deceptive practices a logical fallacy which is forbidden here? The fourth one, Bray & Von Storch: http://www.academia.edu/2365610/A_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_and_Climate_Change I find question #9 (Q11) on page 21 very revealing, but a topic for a different thread. Question 20 (Q56), page 46: 20. How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now? 93.8% was to the affirmative, rating it a 5, 6, or 7 on a scale of 1 to 7. Note however, "natural or anthropogenic." This is the only combination I found that fits to the 94% in the bar graph. If I missed something, feel free to show us. The next on, 21/(Q57): 21. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes? Hmmm... How would I answer that? Predicting the future is difficult. Until the sun recently quieted down, it had been relatively stable for 50 years. Since most the thermal inertia is now equalized, I would say yes to the anthropogenic, but that would assume the sun remains stable. Anyone have a time machine? Anyway, 83+% answered 5, 6, or 7. Oh... 1 to 7, 1 is "not at all" and 7 is "very much." Therefore, if these results are any above 1, that might be what is being looked at. Using 2 to 7, is 98.649%. 3 to 7 is 95.672%, and 4 to 7 is 88.915%. This question doesn't match the 94%, only the previous one that includes "natural." These are the only pertinent questions I saw for the bar graph. The last one. STATS/Harris Interactive: LOL.... Looking for this one, I found your agenda driven source: http://www.progressorcollapse.com/98-of-most-published-climate-scientists-argue-climate-change-is-man-made-but-who-cares-what-does-sarah-palin-say/ It takes me back to a US News Report I already found, but no active source link. http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern I don't see a quote to support the bar, but this is close: Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." Now before going all gaga on this one, look up the definition of substantiate. It too does not imply "largely." So, in summary, none of these sources support the contention of "largely" as portrayed in the bar graph.

Wow... You are full of unsourced logical fallacies today. Give me some time, I will point out the errors when I find the source material. In the mean time, please stop posting unsourced logical falacies as fact. I'll start with this one. The good 'ol pie chart by blogger James Powell. You should read his methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html He uses key word searches, then eliminated the ones he can find rejecting AGW. Please show me where the AGW is quantified in his methodology. Oh... His biography: http://www.jamespowell.org/Bio/Bio.html Not that this is so important, but remember this when you wish to dismiss a work because it isn't done by a climatologist. Just what is this suppose to mean? I see it a the logical fallacy called a "Red Herring." Nearly all of us who you would call deniers aren't saying global warming isn't real.

Skeptical Science? Really? An activist blog site... They have some nice cherry picked examples. Why don't you think they included the examples that were, for example, less warming than predicted? They are far from unbiased.

As evidence that supports my beliefs, yes. As appealing to authority, no. I have only been in this forum for a couple days now. You would be wise not to stick with your initial impressions/assumptions of me. I have read, linked, commented on hundreds of papers over the years. Just because I am new here, doesn't mean I am new to the topic. Part of the reason I am reluctant to link and comment more than I do, is because it would be redundant to what I have already done. You'll find me more motivated in the future with newer discussions. I can agree with that. My perception is that most climate models fail to stay in bound of their predictions after some time. Nobody should have a problem with that. Science is an ever learning process. Who is the real denier if a paper is shunned because it falls outside of consensus? I agree to jump to that conclusion would be a mistake. Did you read and understand what he did? I find it refresing that he isn't using 70's assessments of sensitivity. As I recall, I was applauding it's complexity when someone referred to it as simple.

I don't appeal to authority like those who say "consensus" apparently do. Please don't do that. I never said "all" models are wrong. Do you have a real question? Do you really want to waste a thread with such broad generalities? Should I ignore you? I have now posted at least two good papers. Not my fault you deny they are decent. Hmm... This is a thread titled "who here is a global warming skeptic." Does this mean my opinion and reasons need to be peer reviewed? Logical fallacy is so subjective also. Can you explicitly tell us what I did as a logical fallacy? Doesn't it hinge on the opinion of the reader in most cases? Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy? I'm not sure what you mean. Thos paper quantified it as CO2 sensitivity, but uses forcing values as well. I don't recall it saying or implying that CO2 cause 70% as much temperature change as the IPCC says, but I believe that's about right for the forcing in the paper. Do you remember the words or can you quote the paragraph? I am inclined to think you are confusing forcing with sensitivity. Wait one damn minute! I never said, never have said, and never will say AGW does not exist! Just how do you extrapolate that?

Those are the same modelling, but not from the same place. The one in post 100 ends abiout 2003/2004. The link you gave says it was last modified 12/19/12. Interesting. They are also simulations (models,) and from Hansen et al 2007. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf LOL... This logical fallacy rule is a pain. It is subject to perception. In some cases, how does anyone know if the wording is true or not? As for your linked paper, same basic concept applies. I find it annoying when someone only links the abstract, when the full paper is available online. I cannot help to assume that a person was lead to a paper without reading or understanding it, but just being a faithful follower. Here is the full paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf OK, if you look at table 2: (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification (3) Implicit endorsement (4a) No position (4b) Uncertain (5) Implicit rejection (6) Explicit rejection without quantification (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Please note, that only (1) quantifies the level of CO2, yet they use conditions 1-3 to justify the 97% or so which is then stated as "most." How can anyone claim this with integrity, when not quantified? I see so many instances where climate scientists completely lack integrity in the presented results from their methodology Back to the paper. Table 3 shows 34.8% of the authors endorsing, 64.8% with no position or uncertain, and 1.2% rejecting it. So they take the endorsing and rejecting, and come up with this high percentage. The actual endorsing including no quantification is 34.79%, but they pretend the no opinion or don’t know, don’t matter. What is most of those giving no opinion are afraid to, for loss of job, etc. Look at how anyone who disagrees with consensus is treated. In such a hostile climate (pun not intended,) why add to the hostility if it has no bearing on your paper? This inflating of the 34.79% to 98%, or what ever thy use is crazy. It would be like saying president Clinton won with 53.45% of the vote when he only had 43.01% of the vote in 1992.