Yet more proof.

[Scott777]

What about them, unless climate change is part of their expertise why would they?

I didn't suggest they would.  Beelzebub said "less than 1% of scientists are denying AGW".  Then he said the claim is based on papers they published.  So how do you know the other scientists deny AGW?

[Nick]

So your theory (the rise in Co2 is caused by natural processes triggered by events 800 years ago) necessitates that the extra co2 is all (bar "a fraction of a percent") from natural sources (eg oceans)

How do you explain the change in carbon isotopes ratio that shows the bulk of the extra carbon is from fossil fuels?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

If the rise is caused by humans, then how could it have been caused by events 800 years ago?

Nice try

Your article is very sneaky in the way it says 'signature of Carbon', it doesn't say the signature of CO2. This is how the game is being played, and that is why there is mass hysteria about CO2 because institutes skew the numbers and wording. 
I don't know and I'm asking genuinely, what is the difference from one atom of oceanic CO2 and one atom of fossil fuel CO2? What is this signature?

[BeElBeeBub]

And how would that show only 1% of scientists are denying AGW?  What about all the scientists who have not published papers on it?

Technically it's papers.  3,000 were reviewed and 31 were denying AGW (either explicitly or implicitly)

That 1% (close enough) of papers.

Even if the AGW scientists were super busy and posted 10 papers each whilst the deniers only published 1 each, you'd still have a 10:1 ratio of scientists.

As for the unpublished papers - are we back to citing evidence that we can't see?  

What do you base your estimation on? A systematic search? A randomised poll of verified scientists in the area with sufficient numbers to have statistical significance? 

[BeElBeeBub]

Now you are contradicting what you previously said.

#221
Me: "Warming by how much over what period?"
You: "Roughly 1C since the late 1880."

Therefore you cannot "equally argue" it is 0.5C or 7C.  7C is not roughly 1C.  If it is roughly 1C, as you said, then it would be equally likely to be 1.5C as 0.5C.  So make up your mind.

No, you are misreading.

I have maintained it is roughly 1C since the 1880s and the rate is higher since the 1980's

0.5C is what you might get if you make extremely biased assumptions. Likewise 7C.  Neither are remotely supportable.

The margin of error is not 0.5C

Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C). In this context "likely" means greater than 66% probability the real figure is in this range.

If you extend the range down to 0.5C your confidence limits are 95% or to put it another way there is only a 1 in 20 chance the 0.5C figure is right.

[papasmurf]

  What about all the scientists who have not published papers on it?

What about them, unless climate change is part of their expertise why would they?

[Scott777]

Why don't you look at the paper and see what holes you can poke into it

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

What proportion of relevant scientists (a vet or a pure mathematician don't really count) do you think disagree with global warming?

Prove your number.

And how would that show only 1% of scientists are denying AGW?  What about all the scientists who have not published papers on it?

[papasmurf]

Try this link
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

Cheers. But it won't convince Nick.

[BeElBeeBub]

And how did you verify this claim by this website?

Why don't you look at the paper and see what holes you can poke into it 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

What proportion of relevant scientists (a vet or a pure mathematician don't really count) do you think disagree with global warming?

Prove your number.

[BeElBeeBub]

Try this link
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

[papasmurf]

And how did you verify this claim by this website?

That website seems to be corrupted.

[Scott777]

A large sample (3,000 from 88,000) of climate related papers were processed and rated from explicit consensus to explicit skepticism.

31 were implicitly or explicitly skeptical.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Note that the prevalence of skepticism is falling over time. This is the opposite of what you would expect for a new theory that better explains the observations.

And how did you verify this claim by this website?

[Scott777]

It's only 0.5C if you take the absolute best case reading.  You could equally argue that 7C is as likely by taking the absolute worst case.

You've previously complained about "selectivity" and here you are selectively cherry picking.

Now you are contradicting what you previously said.

#221
Me: "Warming by how much over what period?"
You: "Roughly 1C since the late 1880."

Therefore you cannot "equally argue" it is 0.5C or 7C.  7C is not roughly 1C.  If it is roughly 1C, as you said, then it would be equally likely to be 1.5C as 0.5C.  So make up your mind.

[BeElBeeBub]

How did you discover only 1% of scientists are denying AGW?

Your options are conveniently selective.  Why did you not include the possibility of deceit by the IPCC?

A large sample (3,000 from 88,000) of climate related papers were processed and rated from explicit consensus to explicit skepticism.

31 were implicitly or explicitly skeptical.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Note that the prevalence of skepticism is falling over time. This is the opposite of what you would expect for a new theory that better explains the observations. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Not totally natural, we have obviously added a fraction of a percent, but... so you accept that the oceans have an integral time of about 800 years and that any warming we are seeing is from a sustained change that started centuries ago?

So your theory (the rise in Co2 is caused by natural processes triggered by events 800 years ago) necessitates that the extra co2 is all (bar "a fraction of a percent") from natural sources (eg oceans) 

How do you explain the change in carbon isotopes ratio that shows the bulk of the extra carbon is from fossil fuels?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

If the rise is caused by humans, then how could it have been caused by events 800 years ago?

[BeElBeeBub]

But you don't know this.  That's the whole point of margin of error.  So it MIGHT be 0.5C.  So in that scenario, over 140 years, how could you possibly know it's not down to all the other factors, sunspots, volcanoes, orbital trajectory, Gulf Stream....? 

It's only 0.5C if you take the absolute best case reading.  You could equally argue that 7C is as likely by taking the absolute worst case.

You've previously complained about "selectivity" and here you are selectively cherry picking.