User talk:2400:4050:8E41:5900:C145:39C:C3DC:276E

May 2019
Hello, I'm Gilliam. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to William Happer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

No this wasn't an experiment it is completely relevant in order to maintain objectivity and avoid libel. Without my qualifier it misrepresents Mr. Happers position.

You can deny the debate on the accuracy of using the term "consensus" if you like but is is well documented. Hence the phrase "so called" I included in my edit. Its accurate since Newsweek latched on to this phrase "Consensus" introduced by NASA, and it has been used without sufficient evidence to support its use, nor a clear definition of what exactly this so called consensus it supporting. Consensus is not being used without qualifiers but should be here because people are mislead to believe it means all scientists support the belief that AGW is a significant factor in climate change. Untrue.

IF you examine the claim of the "97% consensus" from the citings on NASA's website, there is no consensus of all scientists on AGW. The NASA article is below https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The 2 citations below (there are more) a survey where only 30% responded- the consensus is among "respondents" NOT all scientists as is implied repeatedly by this word "consensus" over the years. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/10.1…/2009EO030002

here is another one- the consensus is based on those who "expressed any opinion" on AGW in their abstracts but only 34% did hardly a consensus. J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Wikipedia should represent both sides and include accurate terminology and if necessary, which i believe it is in this case, give the parameters of this widely and erroneously accepted term "consensus" These 2 citings clearly show there are qualifiers namely "respondents" and those who expressed opinions".

It borders on a lie or at the least misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilldomain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)