New research.

'The scientific "consensus" on climate change has gotten (sic!) stronger, surging past the famous -- and controversial -- figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.

The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists -- close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.'

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-clima...-it-very-wrong

Methodology he

http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

'2014 Update I

I followed the same procedure, first comparing my original database, which was completed on Nov. 12, 2012, with all the records for 2012, to identify the new records that were not in the original set. There were 347 new ones, which I then added to the 1,911 records for 2013. This gave a total of 2,258 articles answering to "global warming" or "global climate change" from Nov. 12, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013. Only one article rejected AGW. See here.. Download the Excel database here.

2014 Update II

Finally, in order to test the proposition that articles rejecting AGW might be under other keywords, I decided to search for articles with the keyword phrase "climate change" but neither "global warming" nor "global climate change," since I had already reviewed those. From 1991-2013, there have been 54,785 such articles, too many to deal with. Therefore I restricted the search for articles with keywords "climate change" to 2013. That produced 8,974 articles, which I reviewed. In my judgment, only one rejected AGW. See that article here. Certainly there may be articles published prior to 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change" that rejected AGW, but I see no reason why the proportion of those articles should be higher.

Summary

Combining the three searches, I have reviewed 13,950+2,258+8,974=25,182 articles. Of those, 26 reject AGW. That is 0.1 percent, or 1 in 1,000. For 2013, there are 1,911articles [search terms global warming and global climate change] + 8,974 [climate change] = 10,885, 2 of which are rejections, about 1 in 5,440.'

Climate deniers really are in the smallest of minorities.

Gotten!! Since when did you go all American?

In British English it is simply 'Got', not gotten.

On 17/06/15 15:25, Dave wrote:
Gotten!! Since when did you go all American?

In British English it is simply 'Got', not gotten.


wow. usage of 'gotten' is complicated.


http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/gotten.html

Here's what David Crystal says about The gotten/got distinction in
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (p.311):

"Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical
differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong.
It is not simply an alternative for have got. Gotten is used in such
contexts as
They've gotten a new boat. (= obtain)
They've gotten interested. (= become)
He's gotten off the chair. (= moved)
But it is not used in the sense of possession (= have). AmE does not
allow
*I've gotten the answer.
or *I've gotten plenty.
but uses I've got as in informal BrE. The availability of gotten
does however mean that AmE can make such distinctions as the following:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave)."

.......

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 3:25:23 PM UTC+1, Dave wrote:
Gotten!! Since when did you go all American?

In British English it is simply 'Got', not gotten

Note the speech marks around the full quote from the news source and the (sic) after the word. Just to show it wasn't me. Youmust have missed all that.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Dave wrote:

Gotten!! Since when did you go all American?

In British English it is simply 'Got', not gotten.

"Gotten" used to be British. We just got lazy and and dropped it.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

Or our language evolved.

In most cases a sentence with the word gotten, instead of got, just doesn't flow and sound right.

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 13:45:11 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
New research.

'The scientific "consensus" on climate change has gotten (sic!) stronger, surging past the famous -- and controversial -- figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.

The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists -- close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.'

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-clima...-it-very-wrong

Methodology he

http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

'2014 Update I

I followed the same procedure, first comparing my original database, which was completed on Nov. 12, 2012, with all the records for 2012, to identify the new records that were not in the original set. There were 347 new ones, which I then added to the 1,911 records for 2013. This gave a total of 2,258 articles answering to "global warming" or "global climate change" from Nov. 12, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013. Only one article rejected AGW. See here. Download the Excel database here.

2014 Update II

Finally, in order to test the proposition that articles rejecting AGW might be under other keywords, I decided to search for articles with the keyword phrase "climate change" but neither "global warming" nor "global climate change," since I had already reviewed those. From 1991-2013, there have been 54,785 such articles, too many to deal with. Therefore I restricted the search for articles with keywords "climate change" to 2013. That produced 8,974 articles, which I reviewed. In my judgment, only one rejected AGW. See that article here. Certainly there may be articles published prior to 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change" that rejected AGW, but I see no reason why the proportion of those articles should be higher.

Summary

Combining the three searches, I have reviewed 13,950+2,258+8,974=25,182 articles. Of those, 26 reject AGW. That is 0.1 percent, or 1 in 1,000. For 2013, there are 1,911articles [search terms global warming and global climate change] + 8,974 [climate change] = 10,885, 2 of which are rejections, about 1 in 5,440.'

Climate deniers really are in the smallest of minorities.

They certainly are among those who know anything about the subject and I should hope so. The problem is that the scientists themselves are a tiny minority among the population as a whole, large numbers of whom (especially in America) simply cannot stomach the idea of AGW. They have no basis for this belief but are simply expressing the fact that they don't like it. What do we do with them?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Anyway, getting back to our favorite British pastime of talking about the weather.

I heard a rumour the Jet Stream is about to kick back into action late next week, with it being Gladtonbury weekend and the fact I've booked a few days off work, you can bet your bottom dollar 'The Return of the Westerlies' will kick in bang on time.

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 20:01:46 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 13:45:11 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
New research.

'The scientific "consensus" on climate change has gotten (sic!) stronger, surging past the famous -- and controversial -- figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.

The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists -- close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.'

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-clima...-it-very-wrong

Methodology he

http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

'2014 Update I

I followed the same procedure, first comparing my original database, which was completed on Nov. 12, 2012, with all the records for 2012, to identify the new records that were not in the original set. There were 347 new ones, which I then added to the 1,911 records for 2013. This gave a total of 2,258 articles answering to "global warming" or "global climate change" from Nov. 12, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013. Only one article rejected AGW. See here. Download the Excel database here.

2014 Update II

Finally, in order to test the proposition that articles rejecting AGW might be under other keywords, I decided to search for articles with the keyword phrase "climate change" but neither "global warming" nor "global climate change," since I had already reviewed those. From 1991-2013, there have been 54,785 such articles, too many to deal with. Therefore I restricted the search for articles with keywords "climate change" to 2013. That produced 8,974 articles, which I reviewed. In my judgment, only one rejected AGW. See that article here. Certainly there may be articles published prior to 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change" that rejected AGW, but I see no reason why the proportion of those articles should be higher.

Summary

Combining the three searches, I have reviewed 13,950+2,258+8,974=25,182 articles. Of those, 26 reject AGW. That is 0.1 percent, or 1 in 1,000. For 2013, there are 1,911articles [search terms global warming and global climate change] + 8,974 [climate change] = 10,885, 2 of which are rejections, about 1 in 5,440.'

Climate deniers really are in the smallest of minorities.

They certainly are among those who know anything about the subject and I should hope so. The problem is that the scientists themselves are a tiny minority among the population as a whole, large numbers of whom (especially in America) simply cannot stomach the idea of AGW. They have no basis for this belief but are simply expressing the fact that they don't like it.. What do we do with them?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

You bring in the Pope the new hero of the left and the AGW religious movement. Even though up until the Papal Propaganda came spewing as if from god , the left hated western religion but now is the time of atonement and the Pope tells us that the God that made all on heaven and earth is now c worreid sick that his planet is in danger. Yes the hatred and contempt for Christianity from the left chattering classes is now exulted in the highest. Islam move over , there's a new kid in lefty town.

If only this was all about the science, if only. I heard Radio 4 inteviewing some form of Papal'Avon Calling'sale rep on this mornings AM. She spoke absolute drivel , in fact she spoke so much crap that the claim that God made the world in seven days has shot up the believability charts.

There is ot ONE dissater metric for catastrophic AGW that has actually happened, NOT ONE. The other pont about the Americans . Well after two exceptionally cold winters I don't think that a warming planet by o'2222 of a degree is going to me exactly on their worry list.

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:30:58 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 20:01:46 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 13:45:11 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
New research.

'The scientific "consensus" on climate change has gotten (sic!) stronger, surging past the famous -- and controversial -- figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.

The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists -- close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.'

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-clima...-it-very-wrong

Methodology he

http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

'2014 Update I

I followed the same procedure, first comparing my original database, which was completed on Nov. 12, 2012, with all the records for 2012, to identify the new records that were not in the original set. There were 347 new ones, which I then added to the 1,911 records for 2013. This gave a total of 2,258 articles answering to "global warming" or "global climate change" from Nov. 12, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013. Only one article rejected AGW. See here. Download the Excel database here.

2014 Update II

Finally, in order to test the proposition that articles rejecting AGW might be under other keywords, I decided to search for articles with the keyword phrase "climate change" but neither "global warming" nor "global climate change," since I had already reviewed those. From 1991-2013, there have been 54,785 such articles, too many to deal with. Therefore I restricted the search for articles with keywords "climate change" to 2013. That produced 8,974 articles, which I reviewed. In my judgment, only one rejected AGW. See that article here. Certainly there may be articles published prior to 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change" that rejected AGW, but I see no reason why the proportion of those articles should be higher.

Summary

Combining the three searches, I have reviewed 13,950+2,258+8,974=25,182 articles. Of those, 26 reject AGW. That is 0.1 percent, or 1 in 1,000. For 2013, there are 1,911articles [search terms global warming and global climate change] + 8,974 [climate change] = 10,885, 2 of which are rejections, about 1 in 5,440.'

Climate deniers really are in the smallest of minorities.

They certainly are among those who know anything about the subject and I should hope so. The problem is that the scientists themselves are a tiny minority among the population as a whole, large numbers of whom (especially in America) simply cannot stomach the idea of AGW. They have no basis for this belief but are simply expressing the fact that they don't like it. What do we do with them?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

You bring in the Pope the new hero of the left and the AGW religious movement. Even though up until the Papal Propaganda came spewing as if from god , the left hated western religion but now is the time of atonement and the Pope tells us that the God that made all on heaven and earth is now c worreid sick that his planet is in danger. Yes the hatred and contempt for Christianity from the left chattering classes is now exulted in the highest. Islam move over , there's a new kid in lefty town.

If only this was all about the science, if only. I heard Radio 4 inteviewing some form of Papal'Avon Calling'sale rep on this mornings AM. She spoke absolute drivel , in fact she spoke so much crap that the claim that God made the world in seven days has shot up the believability charts.

There is ot ONE dissater metric for catastrophic AGW that has actually happened, NOT ONE. The other pont about the Americans . Well after two exceptionally cold winters I don't think that a warming planet by o'2222 of a degree is going to me exactly on their worry list.

Idiot.