Difference between revisions of "PopularTechnology.net"

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
m (1 revision imported)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<onlyinclude>
 
<!-- While editing this lede/intro, please keep your text below this line - this will make it easier to automatically insert the lead into other articles. -->
 
 
PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated.  
 
PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated.  
<!-- While editing this lead/intro, please keep your text ABOVE this line - this will make it easier to automatically wuzzawuzza yadablabla - thanks!  -->
+
<noinclude>
</onlyinclude>
 
 
== 2014 PopularTechnology.net ==
 
== 2014 PopularTechnology.net ==
 
1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published.
 
1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published.
Line 11: Line 8:
 
----
 
----
 
{{Template:Climate}}
 
{{Template:Climate}}
[[Category:Climate]][[Category:Consensus]][[Category:Skeptics]][[Category:NoIndex]]
+
[[Category:Climate]][[Category:Consensus]][[Category:Skeptics]][[Category:NoIndex]][[Category:Study]]
 +
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 13:47, 2 February 2019

PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated.

2014 PopularTechnology.net

1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published.

List of Papers


Climate : 2008 ABC Predicted that NYC would be underwater by 20152009 Glaciers gone by 2020Climate ModelsClimate ReligionElectric CarsOcean WarmingParis Climate Accord