Originally posted by @deepthought
The first sentence of the paper is:

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.

The only reasonable interpretation of that sentence is that humans are the main, if not the only, cause of global warming in the short term (i.e. of the order of a century).

That is the same statement the consensus project uses and it is wrong.

Your critical skills suck. That statement is implying humans are causing global warming by 100% which is impossible. Pointing to statements that don't make any sense is not a good tactic. Find the peer reviewed articles that you think will confirm that statement. I am confident you will find out you are wrong when you do.

Originally posted by @deepthought
This is from section 2 of the paper:

Stenhouse et al (2014) collected responses from 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Among members whose area of expertise was climate science, with a publication focus on climate, [b]78% agreed that the cause of global warming over the past 150 years was mostly human, with an addition ...[text shortened]... 88% ) indicating the warming was caused equally by human activities and natural causes.

[/b]

Here is the first sentence from the link below:

AMS members are scientists, researchers, students, educators, broadcasters, and other professionals working together to make a difference in the fields of weather, water, and climate.

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/AMS/membership/

They are not all climate scientists, not even close.

Originally posted by @deepthought
Why the crepe would a state within a state (I assume that that is what deep state means) want people to believe in global warming if it didn't wasn't happening?

Metal Brain probably has an answer to that. He wouldn't believe there is a consensus among climate scientists even if every one of them personally told him their opinion.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Metal Brain probably has an answer to that. He wouldn't believe there is a consensus among climate scientists even if every one of them personally told him their opinion.

You are a slandering jerk! And you wonder why your friends call you an arrogant jerk. You are also wrong and so is deepthought. The link he posted from Consensus on consensus says this:

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al"

Cook et al does not establish that most climate scientists think man is the main cause. They use vague terms like "significant" instead of "main cause".

If you want to post one of the 6 peer reviewed studies that are equally flawed go ahead and embarrass yourself.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Here is the first sentence from the link below:

AMS members are scientists, researchers, students, educators, broadcasters, and other professionals working together to make a difference in the fields of weather, water, and climate.

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/AMS/membership/

They are not all climate scientists, not even close.

Consider the fragment of the text I highlighted: "Among members whose area of expertise was climate science,...".

Originally posted by @deepthought
Consider the fragment of the text I highlighted: "Among members whose area of expertise was climate science,...".

Why didn't they say "climate scientists"? Not all meteorologists are climate scientists. One could say they all have an expertise in that area without it being an obvious lie though. It is however misleading and deceptive.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
That is the same statement the consensus project uses and it is wrong.

Your critical skills suck. That statement is implying humans are causing global warming by 100% which is impossible. Pointing to statements that don't make any sense is not a good tactic. Find the peer reviewed articles that you think will confirm that statement. I am confident you will find out you are wrong when you do.

The sentence says that 90-100% of scientists who responded agreed with the statement that recent global warming is caused by humans. So the percentage is of scientists, not of the effect on climate. The words "entirely caused by humans" do not appear. Since you are not a climate scientist I feel I should ask what makes you so certain that the bulk of recent global warming cannot have been caused by humans?

Originally posted by @deepthought
The sentence says that 90-100% of scientists who responded agreed with the statement that recent global warming is caused by humans. So the percentage is of scientists, not of the effect on climate. The words "entirely caused by humans" do not appear. Since you are not a climate scientist I feel I should ask what makes you so certain that the bulk of recent global warming cannot have been caused by humans?

Scientists are not climate scientists just as you are not a climate scientist.
Caused by humans does not imply entirely? It doesn't say "mostly". Since that statement is so vague it could mean only some and not mostly at all.
Read one of those 6 peer reviewed studies and see for yourself. They use non specific terms to deliberately mislead. That is why you have been duped.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Scientists are not climate scientists just as you are not a climate scientist.
Caused by humans does not imply entirely? It doesn't say "mostly". Since that statement is so vague it could mean only some and not mostly at all.
Read one of those 6 peer reviewed studies and see for yourself. They use non specific terms to deliberately mislead. That is why you have been duped.

The bottom line for you is climate scientist or not, if they don't agree with your buddy Singer or Spencer they will be pronounced wrong or worse by you.

Originally posted by @deepthought
Since you are not a climate scientist I feel I should ask what makes you so certain that the bulk of recent global warming cannot have been caused by humans?

One of the many things he and others like him don't get is that if you are a none expert then, unless you got an extremely good reason to think otherwise for a particular case (which is always very rarely true), ones default assumption should always be that the expert opinion is probably right and it is best not to form any opinion contrary to that expert opinion else your contrary opinion would almost certainly be wrong.
This is one reason why we employ experts; to tell us stuff that we wouldn't otherwise be able to rationally know.

I find it hilarious that he, the non-scientist, thinks you can argue against you, the physics expert, about PHYSICS!

Originally posted by @humy
One of the many things he and others like him don't get is that if you are a none expert then, unless you got an extremely good reason to think otherwise for a particular case (which is always very rarely true), ones default assumption should always be that the expert opinion is probably right and it is best not to form any opinion contrary to that expert opin ...[text shortened]... that he, the non-scientist, thinks you can argue against you, the physics expert, about PHYSICS!

It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Thanks for that.
Haven't yet worked out the difference in meaning between "illusory superiority" and the "Dunning-Kruger effect" although the two are obviously closely related.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
The bottom line for you is climate scientist or not, if they don't agree with your buddy Singer or Spencer they will be pronounced wrong or worse by you.

I don't ignore flaws for political reasons. That is what you do. That and troll.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I don't ignore flaws for political reasons. That is what you do. That and troll.

Political. Right. Can't you come up with a better pejorative than that?

Originally posted by @humy
One of the many things he and others like him don't get is that if you are a none expert then, unless you got an extremely good reason to think otherwise for a particular case (which is always very rarely true), ones default assumption should always be that the expert opinion is probably right and it is best not to form any opinion contrary to that expert opin ...[text shortened]... that he, the non-scientist, thinks you can argue against you, the physics expert, about PHYSICS!

I am not afraid of being proved wrong if I know I will learn something as a result. If deepthought can help me understand why I'm wrong I will benefit from the knowledge. That is the difference between you and me. You put too much effort into avoiding failure even when the risk of failure is worth it. Being right is temporary and the accomplishment fades quickly. Knowledge lasts a lifetime or when your memory fails, whichever comes first.

You come in useful sometimes. You try hard to prove me wrong and that is exactly what I need at times. Sometimes I learn the most from those that resent me the most. They try harder to unwittingly help me learn.