When 32.6% becomes 97%— the bald-faced lie that changed the western world

journalsEveryone has heard the famous statement that 97% of scientists say global warming is real. Of course, that in itself is a meaningless statement, since no one disputes that the earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century or so.

But the “97% of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted:

{source}
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/climate?src=hash”>#climate</a> change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: <a href=”http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf”>http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf</a></p>&mdash; Barack Obama (@BarackObama) <a href=”https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/335089477296988160″>May 16, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
{/source}

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook found? Only 32.6% of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97% said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97% consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.

Still don’t believe me? Here’s the actual, posted statement:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Bottom line: In the actual study in question, only one-third of the 11,994 academic papers studied could be construed as arguing for man-made warming. Possibly the other two-thirds were more focused on the unprecedented increase in solar activity seen over the past century.

Regardless, the big lie has taken hold, and is now being used to push for “decarbonization” policies, and to silence critics of “global warming.”

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (57)

  • Avatar

    97% skeptic

    |

    We found two pairs of surprising statistics. To do this we first searched the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use at least one of the words model, modeled or modeling. This shows that there is indeed a widespread use of models in science. No surprise in this.

    However, when we filter these results to only include items that also use the term climate change, something strange happens. The number of articles is only reduced to roughly 55% of the total.

    In other words it looks like climate change science accounts for fully 55% of the modeling done in all of science. This is a tremendous concentration, because climate change science is just a tiny fraction of the whole of science. In the U.S. Federal research budget climate science is just 4% of the whole and not all climate science is about climate change.

    In short it looks like less than 4% of the science, the climate change part, is doing about 55% of the modeling done in the whole of science. Again, this is a tremendous concentration, unlike anything else in science.

    We next find that when we search just on the term climate change, there are very few more articles than we found before. In fact the number of climate change articles that include one of the three modeling terms is 97% of those that just include climate change. This is further evidence that modeling completely dominates climate change research.

    To summarize, it looks like something like 55% of the modeling done in all of science is done in climate change science, even though it is a tiny fraction of the whole of science. Moreover, within climate change science almost all the research (97%) refers to modeling in some way.

    This simple analysis could be greatly refined, but given the hugely lopsided magnitude of the results it is unlikely that they would change much.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-modeling-dominates-climate-science

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    One thing dangerous about scary global warming is leaving office in November .
    The earth is warming ,climate changes . and everything humans do has some mostly immeasurable effect on the direction of climate change .

    The earth doesn’t have a fever although a warming world is a far better place for plants ,forests ,sea creatures and animals .
    The thing to fear, if so inclined , are self dealing promoters of one of the biggest scams in history .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The 97 % figure is misleading and proven to be false . When senior government people are in a position to know how the number was arrived at and that it is a false misrepresentation they are lying to the public . Their motivation is obvious . Taxes . campaign contingent donations , inter government funding etc . , industries they want to promote and likely have shares in directly or indirectly who are beneficiaries of massive tax payer charity .

    The good news is the businesses are now failing at an alarming rate but at a very high cost to tax payers who have been duped
    by politicians and government bureaucrats
    to the tune of $Billions . What a tragic waste of limited resources .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This illustrates just how poisoned this kind of pseudo-science has become. “Scientism”. It’s influenced far more by popular culture, social media, and a single statement by Lord Obama that becomes accepted as common knowledge overnight.

    Of course it helps when Obama’s supporters dominate the world of left-leaning media and grant-funded academia.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”[url]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/97_percent-vs-reality.png[/url] [url]https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/[/url]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    snedly arkus

    |

    Author has misstated the numbers. In Cooks “study” 66% made no mention at all of climate change, global warming etc. The 32% that made any mention were graded from casual mention to outright support for or against human induced climate change. Depending on who is doing the analysis the claim of 97% of all scientists is based on between 41 and 160 papers. Out of a database of just under 12,000 papers.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    It is worse than you think. The paper is a masterpiece of obfuscation.

    The data behind the paper can be found here: [url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home[/url]

    They grouped the abstracts by how strongly they endorsed the consensus view. The top “endorsement category” was: “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”. They found that only 0.5% of the nearly 12,000 papers fell into that category.

    Further investigation by others reduced that to 0.3% when the abstracts were re-scrutinised.

    So, the famous Cook et al 2013 97% paper, in fact, managed to turn a finding of 0.3% into a headline figure of 97%.

    When you combine that with the fact that the authors were caught planning how they were going to publicise the results via the media even before they started collecting data you have to question their motives.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Global warming is a good thing . Trying to shut down free speech is criminal . Lying to the public is impeachable . How many more sleeps till this BS artist hits the road ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pauly

    |

  • Avatar

    Mike Cross

    |

    The commentators seem to have missed the key point …climate change, causes and effects is a necessary reseach subject as is the means to mitigate any adverse consequences . BUT despite the vast input of money and resources no significant results on any aspect have come out oif the modelers ..,.,because the models are not serious science just a con to attempt to prove their preconcieved BELIEF that it is all AGW. Even if they were right nothing they propose would affect the change or mitigate the consequences. In fact they have wasted all the resoiurces that will be needed to mitigate the major imminent cooling of the global climate

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”John Macdonell”]It’s not as if only one study claims ~ 97% consensus. Check out this meta-study.[/quote]
    The meta-study was written by one of the original authors. So that is hardly corroboration. The Cook et al study found that only 0.5% of abstracts supported that man was mainly responsible. Check the data yourself. How can that be 97%

    The Doran and Zimmerman paper received over 3,000 replies to their survey but only used 77 of them to get the 97% figure.

    Anderegg et al had a strange way of choosing their “experts” based on various lists. Their accounting favoured people who collaborated more with others and at one point they compared the top 50 of a large group with the top 50 of a smaller group. If both groups had a normal distribution it would have biased the answer to a larger group the larger group.

    Have a debunking of many of the papers: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Get Real

    |

    Let’s take a few more 97% guesses.
    97% of politicians are scientifically illiterate.
    97% of journalists do not check their facts.
    97% of climate scientists will be sacked if they speak the truth.
    97% of the general public are too stupid to understand.
    97% of Universities ought to have their grid electricity supply disconnected.
    Any other takers for the 97% club?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Correction :

    97 % of American Communists pretend to be Democrats .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Addendum :

    97 % of American Democrats identify with and can’t recognize any difference between themselves and the American extremist left ( Communists ) and they like it that way even after being exposed for what both it and they are !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    97% certainty Obama is already lined up for a greenie job or part of the cash dispensing UN . Take it to the bank .

    People will look back at the scary global warming fraud and 97 % will wonder why
    Obama and his pals were stupid and arrogant enough to think they were going to
    control the earth’s temperature within a degree or two . The truth is they new they couldn’t but it was a Trojan horse used to shake down tax payers . Nothing more .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Ignorance incarnate as the ” rising ” Drewski has returned presumably to get beaten up again !

    Use whatever appellation you want but you can’t fool anyone .

    Quote your ignorant authorities for they are no more valid than your previous defecations.

    Very telling that you NEVER reference proof, you know the scientific kind. Somehow you think that minority opinion rises to high percentages when you agree with the it.

    And you dare to say ” ignorance ” ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”RisingTemps”]Sorry to burst your ignorance bubble sCeptics …
    These are the results:
    Oreskes 2004 100%; Doran 2009 97%, Anderegg 2009 97%, Cook 2013 97%, Verheggen 2014 91%, Stenhouse 2014 93%, Carlton 2015 97%
    [/quote]
    How do I know that you have not read any of the papers you quoted?
    Oreskes et al found 75% agreement with no disagreement. When an independent reviewer looked at the data he found that only 13 of the thousand or so papers claimed explicit support of the consensus view. To put it another way, 98.7% did not explicitly support the consensus.

    Doran and Zimmerman decided to ignore over 3000 results and concentrate on just 77. 75 of those 77 answered Yes to the question is man having a significant effect on the climate. Note, this is one of the few surveys that actually asked scientists anything. Many just analyse paper abstracts. which is not the same thing. No definition for “significant” was given, however.

    Anderegg et al did not have a sound way of separating experts from non-experts. They confused quantity with quality. If ten scientists wrote a paper each there were 10 points up for grabs. If the same ten collaborated on all 10 papers then there were 100 points available. So 10 scientists, 10 papers and weighting factor anywhere between 10 and 100.

    Second point: Imagine you have 1000 normally distributed results. Split off a representative sample of 100. Now compare the top 50 of each group. The group with 900 in it will almost always fair better even though the results are statistically the same. That is part of the Anderegg et al process.

    Cook et al found that only 0.5% of the abstracts they looked at said that man was mainly responsible. They managed to spin that to the magic 97%.

    I have no comments on the final three because I have not looked at them.

    The American Meteorological Society surveyed its members and they found that only 52% believed that man was mainly responsible. Strangely, the link to that survey seems to be “not found” otherwise I would have posted it. Judith Curry discussed it, though: https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote](I wonder how long this comment will be allowed to stay on the site?)[/quote]

    Considering your banned for being a lying, offensive troll who repeatedly spams the same specious and refuted BS over and over?

    Maybe making ANOTHER new login name will help eh Comrade?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”RisingTemps”]They SPECIFICALLY ASKED for only those scientists who recently published studies on CLIMATE to respond. You know, the REAL experts. Of the thousands of general requests sent out, 79 qualified were received. Of those, 77 said that man is affecting the climate i.e 97%.
    [/quote]

    So this consensus is, in reality, just 75 scientists? Not a very big consensus is it? And remember they were not asked if man was mainly responsible so when you quote this result all you can claim is that 75 earth scientists out of over 10,000 that were asked thought that man’s role was “significant”.

    Was that group of 77 chosen prior to the survey or after they had looked at the replies? I could have picked a different 77 and come up with 0%. I am sure I could have found a justification for choosing that 77 as well.

    By the way, did “significant” mean major, over 10%, statistically significant or something else?

    The question you need to ask yourself is why are these surveys necessary. You don’t see them for gravity, or relativity, for instance. The answer, of course, is not science-related. It is just politics and propaganda.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Scientists who recently published studies on CLIMATE to respond. You know, the REAL experts?[/quote] It’s pretty telling that the so called “experts” all have failed to produce any credible science. The 97% who’s pay cheques depend upon it, all seem to believe in models that fail 100% of the time.

    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I might as well make it an even two dozen comments as well as say something new.

    The obvious fraud in the 97% studies is part of a larger pattern. Just about every where we turn there is fraud to support the man made climate change agenda. The first fraud was in the IPCC climate models themselves. In order to get the results they wanted, they added positive feed back factors and never offered any proof that these were in play. This resulted in climate models deviating from real world data so they committed fraud again by altering the historical temperatures records. This was done at first by altering data to make it appear the earth was warming more since 1950 than it really was, and they again altered the records to make it appear that the pause in warming wasn’t happening. It appears they may also have altered the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide to make it appear lower that it was. The report on ocean acidification is obvious fraud.

    Knowing nothing else, the existence of all of this fraud to support the cause is pretty clear evidence that we don’t have a climate change problem other than the politics. What is extremely disturbing is that so many people are willing to commit fraud to support this cause.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]The question you need to ask yourself is why are these surveys necessary. You don’t see them for gravity, or relativity, for instance. The answer, of course, is not science-related. It is just politics and propaganda.[/quote]

    Exactly true. Nowhere in the scientific method is it stated that “consensus” is a valid argument.
    [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote]

    That they have to manufacture this fake consensus and even point to a a “consensus” of the consensus “studies” shows just how weak their “science” really is.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    The meta-study was written by one of the original authors. So that is hardly corroboration.

    Actually, it is corroboration. Cook merely the messenger delivering the other scientists’ message that AGW is real. Deny it if you like, but your grandchildren will hate you.

    If you want more, consider this:

    http://ncse.com/news/2015/09/polling-scientists-climate-change-0016658

    Have a debunking of many of the papers: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

    You trust Friends of Science?? The great defenders of fossil fuel and funded by them?

    They are based in Alberta Canada, and oppose the Alberta Wilderness Association.(Why?)

    Here they are compared to the Flat Earth Society:

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1671928/friends-of-science-tackle-alberta-wilderness-association/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Why is it that the billions of dollars of research from the federal government and radical environmental groups don’t mean a thing when they support researchers who support the anthropological climate change movement, but let fossil fuel companies donate to something and the findings are considered invalid? This is pretty bad hypocrisy.

    This discussion is meaningless anyway. Science is not about consensus. Consider the following. About 40% of the warming blamed on man happened between 1910 and 1941 when carbon dioxide levels where lower and relatively stable. Despite a significant increase in CO2 levels in the past 20 years, according to the raw satellite data there has been a pause in warming. The IPCC models are running much hotter than observed data.

    By the time my grandchildren are old enough to understand such things, the man made climate change issue will have faded into history.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”John Macdonell”]You trust Friends of Science?? The great defenders of fossil fuel and funded by them?

    They are based in Alberta Canada, and oppose the Alberta Wilderness Association.(Why?)[/quote]
    Do you have any salient points to make or is it ad hom time?
    The Cook et al survey found that 0.5% of the abstracts said that man was mainly responsible. That means that 99.5% did not.

    You can spin it all you like but that is what their own data said. Check it, it is on their site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]… but let fossil fuel companies donate to something and the findings are considered invalid?[/quote]

    It is actually worse than that because fossil fuel companies make donations to many of the world’s universities. How much research must that invalidate if you follow the alarmist rules?

    In reality they have only one rule. That is, is it “on-message”? If yes, then it is OK, if not then they run through their list of excuses: Not qualified, qualified but in the wrong subject, qualified in the right subject but now too old, the project was funded by Big Oil, one of the participants was once funded by Big Oil, someone related to one of the scientists met someone at a party that knew someone … etc etc.

    Again, if the science were sound they could just reply: That report is flawed because …” but they cannot. That is the important point.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote]The Cook et al survey found that 0.5% of the abstracts said that man was mainly responsible. That means that 99.5% did not.

    You can spin it all you like but that is what their own data said. Check it, it is on their site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home%5B/quote%5D

    This report merely points out:

    -7 other consensus studies showing scientific agreement on AGW

    The more expert the surveyed respondents are on climate, the higher the agreement.

    Deny it all you like.

    Ignore the meta-studies at your own risk. Did you read this?

    http://ncse.com/news/2015/09/polling-scientists-climate-change-0016658

    Here’s NASA’s take – just for you:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    For 200 more scientific organizations agreeing on AGW, check this:

    https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

    Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on AGW?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]

    By the time my grandchildren are old enough to understand such things, the man made climate change issue will have faded into history.[/quote]

    Dream on. If nothing is done to mitigate AGW, droughts will worsen(see Alberta) and wildfires will get worse(see Alberta), for two things.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”John Macdonell”]This report merely points out:
    -7 other consensus studies showing scientific agreement on AGW
    [/quote]
    No, let’s not get distracted from the original post. Cook et al 2013 looked at about 12,000 paper abstracts and found that only 0.5% of them claimed that man was mainly responsible.
    Do you agree that is the case?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    John MacDonell , .. we understand how upsetting it is when you learned the earth doesn’t have a fever . But the good news it is warming and has been for thousands of years apparently . . Would you rather it was cooling or just staying the same ? Do you think humans are about to control the earth’s thermostat by demonizing a trace gas beneficial to life ?
    Hopefully we do agree the climate changes and we should constantly work on conservation efforts. The exaggeration and money schemes just undermine a more balanced approach . Humans are a far far distant influence than natural variables and anything else Mother Nature has in store.
    To try and sell scary global warming is a fraud especially with it being so beneficial .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]The more expert the surveyed respondents are on climate, the higher the agreement.[quote]

    The more expert? all of their model based predictions have failed. Go re-read the scientific method. And tell us what it means when your hypothesis fails testing.

    http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
    [quote] Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on AGW?[/quote] Your right! There is a 100% agreement. Not one CAGW Model has passed testing by the scientific method.

    “If it disagrees with experiment. It’s wrong!”

    The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman).

    Besides, what they “agree” on is irrelevant to science. What they produce that is actually validated does.

    Invalidated models and

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Here’s NASA’s take – just for you:[/quote] Wondering why Lyshenkoists at NASA oppose using satellites?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/why-does-nasa-giss-oppose-satellites/

    And as for wild fires in Alberta and drought, not one shred of evidence it is due to any man made Co2. And considering it has not stopped raining for three solid days… Your wrong on both counts.

    The real reason is the horrible leftarded NDP party’s policy of cutting the fire fighting budget from over 500 million down to 86 million. [quote]NDP cuts fire-fighting budget while predicting “catastrophic’ conditions.[/quote]

    Seems the money was better spent on hiring more public sector union mutts who voted for them.

    A good example of a freak three way vote split electing a completely incompetent and corrupt government. A cautionary tale really.

    Then to pile on, our woman beating Elbow Gating Selfie King turned down the help offered from other nations. http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/05/09/canada-declines-russian-offer-of-water-bombers-firemen-to-help-fight-alberta-fire/

    [quote]But the good news it is warming and has been for thousands of years apparently . . Would you rather it was cooling or just staying the same ?[/quote]

    Actually it has been cooling for the last 5000 years.
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

    The warmer periods are called the Climactic Optimums simply because life flourished and none of the “catastrophic” things alarmists say will happen did.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    As for being a “climate expert” John Cook is actually not.
    https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/05/a-new-climate-costumed-vigilante/
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg[/img]

    He is however an proven identity thief.
    [quote]John Cook found a “simply clever” albeit not quite ethical (and legal?) way to raise his IQ by 60 points[/quote]
    http://motls.blogspot.ca/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

    The more “expert” Little Johny’s appeals to authority are, the less credible they are. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on AGW?[/quote]

    @ John Mac

    You can stick to agreement, opinion and consensus all you want,

    I’ll stick with scientific method hypothesis, experiment, and proof.

    You can pipe dream your politics all you want.

    I’ll stick with science and logic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    [quote name=”John Macdonell”][quote name=”David Lewis”]

    By the time my grandchildren are old enough to understand such things, the man made climate change issue will have faded into history.[/quote]

    Dream on. If nothing is done to mitigate AGW, droughts will worsen(see Alberta) and wildfires will get worse(see Alberta), for two things.[/quote]

    Wildfires are actually on the decline as the global emissions of carbon dioxide increases.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/media-hype-about-forest-fires-and-global-warming.html

    A quote from this article, “Data going back nearly 90 years seems to indicate a negative correlation between CO2 and wildfires, but that changes when data is “cherry-picked” to only include data going back to the 1960s.”

    As far as droughts, they also are not increasing.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/neither-rising-sea-levels-nor-extreme-weather-getting-worse.html

    If you don’t want to believe these sources on what they say about extreme weather, what about the UN IPCC. In their fifth assessment report they admitted that these events are not increasing.

    Unfortunately I do not have a reference to the best article I ever read about droughts. It was an extensive 30 year study of the entire earth. It found that the percentage of the earth that was in drought conditions was close to being constant, though where the droughts were hitting moved around a lot. When it is your turn for a drought it is easy to blame climate change, but is not accurate.

    I will tell my grandchildren about the climate change crisis. They need to know how easily so many people and institutions can be sold on a fraud so they can see it coming when it happens again.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”sCepticsLieTo Themselves”]6 undeniable truths:

    1) Every study on the climate consensus puts it at over 90%
    2) 100% of the world’s earth space and atmospheric science organizations support the same consensus
    3) 100% of the world’s peak scientific bodies (34) support the consensus.
    4) 100% of the world’s countries signed on the Cop21 climate agreement.
    5) 100% of the poker players, neck doctors, PR hacks and fake lawyers who write for CCD are unqualified in the area in which they profess expertise.
    6) There is a 100% probability that One Trick will repost the same graph and JayPee will not cite a sinlgle piece of evidence to support his no greenhouse gas theory (triple chuckle).[/quote]

    Lie all you want
    Drewski

    You cannot hide because you are so pathetically identifiable.

    None of what you say is of any credence just like your history of idiotic posturing lies.

    Keep coming back though, I for one like beating you up and you apparently sadistically enjoy it !

    You stupidly think you can hide through multiple impostures. YOU CAN’T.

    Because your mental midgetry is so easily identifiable.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]

    I’ll stick with scientific method hypothesis, experiment, and proof.

    ………..

    I’ll stick with science and logic.[/quote]

    Nice to hear you wish to do that. So far, though, it seems exactly what you’re not doing.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]
    I will tell my grandchildren about the climate change crisis. They need to know how easily so many people and institutions can be sold on a fraud so they can see it coming when it happens again.[/quote]

    Good luck with that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Stupid Johnnie Little Mac

    Wants to pretend something he’s not :

    An intellectual !

    But Johnnie wants to engage anyway he can because he so stupidly thinks he can get away with his new identity as If nobody is supposed to know that he is the creep called

    ON – GEE – ASS – KEE

    We’ve been through this before about 20 times while he adopts different identities , but it’s all the same and easily identifiable for he is so stupid that he cannot cover his bases and make himself invisible.

    Drewski

    You are certifiably not only a serial liar but an idiot as well fore you have no ability to conceptualize the fraud you are attempting.

    I not only do not expect you to understand,

    I expect everyone else understands and to be laughing hysterically.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    [quote name=”sCepticsLieTo Themselves”]6 undeniable truths:

    1) Every study on the climate consensus puts it at over 90%
    2) 100% of the world’s earth space and atmospheric science organizations support the same consensus
    3) 100% of the world’s peak scientific bodies (34) support the consensus.
    4) 100% of the world’s countries signed on the Cop21 climate agreement.
    .[/quote]

    The scientific process is to form a theory and compare it to the data. If the theory does not match the data, then change or abandon the theory. In climate change, the theory is the UN IPCC climate models that predict harmful warming. These do not match real world data so the theory should be changed. It is an undeniable fact that 100% of the listed organizations are ignoring the scientific process and not calling for the modification of the climate models.

    As an engineer and scientist I find it disturbing that they are giving supporting a political agenda priority over following the scientific process.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ David Lewis

    Agreed

    But this is precisely what the current Drewski fake identity called Johnnie Mac wants to not only deny but through his references to non-authority declare to be irrelevant, immaterial, and even false because it does not agree with his fraudulent supposed research.

    A phony and fraud to the nth degree, but he will not be silenced no matter how multiply proven a liar nor how much demonstrated an imbecile.

    Expect him to comment further
    No matter how stupidly.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Graphicconception

    |

    [quote name=”sCepticsLieTo Themselves”]6 undeniable truths:
    1) Every study on the climate consensus puts it at over 90%
    [/quote]
    OK, let’s take the Cook et al 2013 97% paper. Their own data records that 0.5% of the nearly 12,000 papers claimed than man was mainly responsible. You don’t have to take my word for that, you can see the data for yourself on the Skeptical Science web site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home Many of the paper’s authors are also involved with SkS. It has also been verified in an independent, peer-reviewed paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

    Where is your: “I’ll stick with scientific method hypothesis, experiment, and proof” now?
    All you have are assertions to counter my multiple lines of evidence.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @misconception

    Try re-reading my post and your response.

    If you can’t understand the gargantuan difference, you have no business attempting to speak of science, unless

    You seek to vividly demonstrate your stupidity.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]The more expert the surveyed respondents are on climate, the higher the agreement.[quote]

    The more expert? all of their model based predictions have failed. Go re-read the scientific method. And tell us what it means when your hypothesis fails testing.

    Really?

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

    (Ad hominems against Cook will be ignored)

    [quote] Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on AGW?[/quote] Your right! There is a 100% agreement. Not one CAGW Model has passed testing by the scientific method.

    Nice try. 200 organizations on board with AGW(probably much more) and all you talk about is a CAGW model – which we’re not talking about.

    Repeat question: Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on the validity of AGW(not CAGW)?

    Besides, what they “agree” on is irrelevant to science. What they produce that is actually validated does.[/quote]

    Here, we agree. But it is nice to know that the most expert people agree, too, on AGW.

    And these experts have produced a lot of hard empirical evidence. Seek and ye shall find.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”][quote name=”John Macdonell”][quote name=”David Lewis”]

    By the time my grandchildren are old enough to understand such things, the man made climate change issue will have faded into history.[/quote]

    Dream on. If nothing is done to mitigate AGW, droughts will worsen(see Alberta) and wildfires will get worse(see Alberta), for two things.[/quote]

    Wildfires are actually on the decline as the global emissions of carbon dioxide increases.

    I didn’t find world info yet, but for Canada, fires expected to increase:

    http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/fire/13155

    As far as droughts, they also are not increasing.

    Nature(journal) disagrees with you:

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1633.html

    Unfortunately I do not have a reference to the best article I ever read about droughts. It was an extensive 30 year study of the entire earth. It found that the percentage of the earth that was in drought conditions was close to being constant, though where the droughts were hitting moved around a lot. When it is your turn for a drought it is easy to blame climate change, but is not accurate.

    That article sounds interesting – seriously. Too bad you can’t find it.

    I will tell my grandchildren about the climate change crisis. They need to know how easily so many people and institutions can be sold on a fraud so they can see it coming when it happens again.[/quote]

    Conspiracy by all the climate scientists? Those greedy buggers.

    [sarcasm off] Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ John tiny mac

    All Climate Scientists ?

    OK you’re on, liar :

    Name every single one of them and cite the publication where they say precisely what you have claimed.

    You won’t because
    You can’t because
    YOU ARE A LIAR !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Macdonell

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ John tiny mac

    All Climate Scientists ?

    OK you’re on, liar :

    Name every single one of them and cite the publication where they say precisely what you have claimed.

    You won’t because
    You can’t because
    YOU ARE A LIAR ![/quote]

    What on earth do you think I claimed?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    If you can’t understand your own writing, I recommend a remedial reading course.

    But it would still depend on an ability to comprehend.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The original article was about consensus among scientists on climate change. “sCepticsLieTo Themselves” responded with a list of ORGANIZATIONS that endorse the climate change movement. This is not the same thing and is a matter of political control.

    I hope this won’t start an off topic discussion but to make my point I’ll reference the gay rights movement. The liberals have near complete control of the public schools so the curriculum supports this movement and some go as far as to have curriculums that are an indoctrination to that point of view. Looking at the school districts’ curriculum does that mean most Americans have this view point? Of course not, tens of millions do not agree. These curriculums are nothing more than a measure of political control by the leftists.

    It is the same with the organizations that support the climate change movement. You can be certain that the EPA, NOAA, and NASA have been ordered to so by the Obama administration. It is the same as Joseph Stalin forcing the acceptance of Lysenko’s quack theories on genetics. Speaking of NASA, a number of retired NASA employees have stated opposition to the anthropological climate change movement. You can bet that many current employees agree but have to keep silent because their pay checks depend on being politically correct.

    There is something else to consider along these lines. This skeptic/denier web site permits debate on this issue. That comes from the belief that open debate will favor the correct conclusion. Can anyone honestly believe that open debate against the climate change movement is permitted within the EPA, NOAA, or NASA?

    Another thing to ask is why do the alarmist consider consensus important? It is an attempt to off set the shabby nature of the science supporting this movement. The UN IPCC models are wrong, and the timing does not match very well between the increases in temperature and carbon dioxide.

    When Einstein announced his theory of relativity, did he say that I and 30 of my colleagues have a consensus? Of course he didn’t. He let the science stand on its own. That is the way is should be with any science, including climate change.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]And these experts have produced a lot of hard empirical evidence. Seek and ye shall find.[/quote] No actually they have not. What they have “produced” are fraudulent “adjustments” and utterly failed models.

    But if you can find any empirical evidence please link to it. I usually stop reading alarmist papers after they mention what un-validated model they used to generate their “un-empirical” non data.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”John Macdonell”][quote name=”amirlach”][quote]The more expert the surveyed respondents are on climate, the higher the agreement.[quote]

    [quote]The more expert? all of their model based predictions have failed. Go re-read the scientific method. And tell us what it means when your hypothesis fails testing.[/quote]

    You said Really? And linked to a serial identity thief?

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

    Yes really. Your link says this?
    [quote]While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.[/quote] Which is completely false.
    [quote] This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

    John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
    [/quote]
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/
    Ad hominems against Cook will be ignored? Show me where I made one. The identity theft is a proven thing.

    You-[quote] Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on AGW?[/quote] Me- Your right! There is a 100% agreement. Not one CAGW Model has passed testing by the scientific method.[/quote] There is political agreement, but for there to be scientific agreement at least one CAGW Model would have to make a skillful prediction and be validated by observations. None have.

    Your reply is an appeal to authority. [quote]Nice try. 200 organizations on board with AGW(probably much more) and all you talk about is a CAGW model – which we’re not talking about. [/quote] It is exactly what we are talking about, you cannot separate “scientific agreement” from the scientific method, for a theory to be scientific it must be testable, and falsifyable. CAGW is neither.

    You really have no idea what the scientific method entails do you? The models are based upon the CAGW Hypothesis who’s “assumptions”, all failed when compared to experiment or observation.

    To paraphrase Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics. “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of your organizations “ARE ON BOARD”, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

    ALL OF THE MODELS were tested, ALL of the CAGW predictions FAILED.
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    You-again… [quote] Repeat question: Do you still think there is no scientific agreement on the validity of AGW(not CAGW)? [/quote]

    Firstly, the invalidated CAGW hypothesis stands for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.

    There is a “scientific” agreement. When all of their predictions are wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. Period.

    And while we are “repeating” questions. What does the Scientific Method say about failed predictions again?

    Me- [quote]Besides, what they “agree” on is irrelevant to science. What they produce that is actually validated does.[/quote]

    And here you make up some complete nonsense. [quote] Here, we agree. But it is nice to know that the most expert people agree, too, on AGW. [/quote] Except that they “agree” on models and science that fails 100% of the time.

    [/quote] And these experts have produced a lot of hard empirical evidence. Seek and ye shall find.[/quote] And you are unable to find any? Links please.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Another thing to ask is why do the alarmist consider consensus important? It is an attempt to off set the shabby nature of the science supporting this movement. The UN IPCC models are wrong, and the timing does not match very well between the increases in temperature and carbon dioxide.[/quote]

    Well posted David.

    You touch on the politics of the left, which is where the IPCC starts and ends. Maurice Strong’s stated goal was to destroy western industrial society. Founding the IPCC was the best vehicle to do this.

    It’s always best to hear it from the horses mouth. Or in this case a short chubby German with a Master Plan.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%e2%80%9cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%e2%80%9d/
    It’s no mystery why they place “consensus” above the scientific method. This is pure politics.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Wildfires are actually on the decline as the global emissions of carbon dioxide increases.

    I didn’t find world info yet, but for Canada, fires expected to increase:

    http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/fire/13155 [/quote]

    New Study out. The researchers conclude:

    “The data available to date do not support a general increase in area burned or in fire severity for many regions of the world. Indeed there is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/24/new-study-shows-no-wildfire-is-increases-due-to-global-warming-slight-decline-in-recent-decades-noted/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Some light reading for you John. It also hits on what David was saying.
    [quote] There is a saying in the world of science that if scientific facts do not support your arguments then stop shouting. It is thus a waste of time to appeal to “scientism” or to rely on popular spokespersons like Al Gore or Bill Nye to make it look otherwise.

    It will do more harm to your own self-esteem than the pretension of winning an argument by appealing to authority or popularity. Increasingly, we are seeing more and more outrageous and aggressive anti-scientific claims that anyone who is not willing to embrace the dangerous global warming bandwagon and to condemn its culprit, CO2, is actually the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.

    This sort of name-calling, loud self-promotion and fact twisting actions, closer to political rodeo than to healthy scientific debates, (Comrade drewski anyone?) are simply telling us that our opponents have already lost their fallacious arguments and are getting short on any real scientific facts.
    [/quote]
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/24/bill-nye-scientism/

    And what “real experts” know about Co2 via empirical observations.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/12/what-do-we-know-about-co2-and-global-atmospheric-temperatures/

    One of the newest ways to measure global temperature is with GPS satellites “measuring global temperature over the lower atmosphere — using the series of GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites — can be obtained by accurately by measuring the propagation of radio waves through the atmosphere. The importance of this new method is that a near-complete coverage of the Earth is afforded and that global atmospheric temperature can be determined without requiring any complex satellite inter-calibration. Only the precise atomic clock is needed to measure the relative delay in propagation of radio waves through the atmosphere which, in turn, allows for a direct assessment of the atmospheric temperature over the lower portion of the atmosphere.

    Unsurprisingly, the GPS-based method confirms what was measured by the thermal infrared/microwave radiometers aboard other satellites; that the nearly-two-decade-long temperature hiatus is real and the thermometer-based record is the oddball. More specifically, global atmospheric temperatures are not warming in the way predicted by the CO2-driven climate models, which serves to argue that CO2 does not act as the thermostat for global atmospheric temperatures.

    An objectively science-based decision is clear:”

    Contrary to your claims John.

    “The preponderance of the evidence suggests that a discernable CO2-influence on the climate has been grossly overstated. So will you choose the scientific decision or rely on the politically-driven thermometer adjustments? Our future rides on the answer to this question.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Maybe a simple graph can better showcase the complete and utter failure of the alarmists “science”.

    This failed science is what John Macdonell’s some 200 plus groups are “on board with”?
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/clip_image0027.jpg[/img]

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.