'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Forum » Beenos Trumpet » '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Feb 16, 2021, 11:49

I recall posting an article destroying the 97% myth, Dr Moz will perhaps remember this.

Here oaks is another article that does the same.

One has to repeat these lessons because young Stavanger in not the sharpest pencil in the box. So here is hoping the dumbass man made climate change hoaxers on the board get it this time! :'(


If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.


If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.


uncaptioned

uncaptioned


(1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

color 4 panel3

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Feb 16, 2021, 11:53

Note how temperature has levelled off. But how come given all the Co2 around! Don't forget oaks Co2 can also cause cooling. Its a remarkable gas. 

Naturally the worst ever US President, Kenyan muslim Hussein Obummer, got it all wrong. Did this traitor ever get anything right!

The breath taking dishonesty of those involved in the climate change hoax never ceases to amaze. 

Feb 16, 2021, 12:04

Put another way:

By Roy SpencerPh.D., principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center. Prior to joining The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr. Spencer was a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

Nothing helps raise public awareness like a good meme, and at least on that score, the "97 percent of scientists agree" meme has been wildly successful in convincing people that the science of global warming is settled. But as we shall see, the statistic - even if it were true - tells us nothing particularly useful regarding the global warming debate.

The 97 percent number comes from a 2013 paper that was published by John Cook in Environmental Research Letters and that claimed to review about 12,000 published scientific papers on global warming and climate change. Now, for those of us who work in climate change research, it is well known that "climate change" is widely assumed to be mostly human-caused, despite the fact that very few published studies have actually attempted to demonstrate this to be the case.

Again, it is simply assumed.

And that is one of the (many) problems with the Cook literature review study. It only established that there is widespread consensus that humans contribute to (not even dominate) global warming, a position that the vast majority of climate "skeptics" agree with - including myself. I do not know of any climate skeptic researchers who claim that humans have no influence on the climate system.  The existence of trees has an influence on the climate system, and it is entirely reasonable to assume that humans do as well.

The most pertinent questions really are: just how much warming is occurring? (not as much as predicted); how much of that warming is being caused by humans? (we don't really know); is modest warming a bad thing? (maybe not); and is there anything we can do about it anyway? (not without a new energy technology).

Also, while the scientific consensus on climate change is a mile wide, it is only inches deep. Very few climate researchers can tell you what evidence points to (say) 50 percent of recent global warming being human-caused. There might be a few dozen scientists in the world who are familiar enough with the science to defend it. Instead, the vast majority of scientists simply repeat what they have heard, or are familiar within only a cursory manner. Climate change research involves so many specialties and sub-disciplines that few scientists have a knowledge base sufficiently holistic to make an informed judgment.

Regarding just how wrong scientific consensus can be, I like to use the example of peptic ulcers.  With millions of sufferers being treated over the last century by doctors, you would think we would know what causes them. Until relatively recently it was assumed that eating spicy food or stress caused them.  But two Australian doctors, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, had a theory that they were caused by bacteria, a fringe idea that led to them being shunned and ridiculed at conferences.

Yet they were correct, and were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine for their work. One can only imagine the thousands of published medical papers that simply assumed that ulcers were caused by stress or spicy food. Would it have been 97 percent? Or even more? I don't know. Yet they were all wrong.

Now, if the physical cause of millions of peptic ulcers went undiscovered for so many years, isn't it possible that there are natural causes of climate change? Climate change is a relatively young science. Computerized climate models do a reasonably good job of replicating the average behavior of the climate system, but have been almost worthless for forecasting climate change. They have not even been able to hindcast (let alone forecast) the warming rate of the past 30-50 years, generally overstating that warming by about a factor of two.

When I have discussed the evidences for natural causes of climate change with "consensus" researchers, they inevitably retreat to the position that "we need to get away from fossil fuels anyway."  But there are no large-scale replacements yet available - even optimistic estimates place 80 percent of the energy generation burden on fossil fuels in the coming decades. You cannot simply legislate or regulate new forms of energy generation into existence.

We really don't understand the natural sources of climate change on decadal or centennial time scales. I liken these sources as "chaos" in the climate system, most likely tied to small changes in ocean circulation that occur naturally, just because that's what nonlinear dynamical systems (like the ocean and atmosphere) do. We have published research that suggests as much as 50 percent of global average warming over the last 50 years was due to more frequent El Nino activity, which affects the ocean circulation, global cloudiness, and global temperatures.

Yes, human greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels almost certainly play a role. How much of a role is unknown.

The extreme popularity and success of the 97 percent meme tells us something about the global warming debate and how it is received. People gravitate toward simple ways to support and defend their preconceived beliefs. Global warming is one of those issues that the believer holds onto with an almost religious fervor. As a scientist I learned long ago that there is no point wanting this or that theory to be correct. Mother Nature really doesn't care what you believe. Instead, I just follow the evidence and generally assume that whatever is developed as an explanation is most likely going to be proved wrong eventually ... as is the case with most published science.

Climate science isn't rocket science. It's actually much more difficult.

Feb 16, 2021, 12:18

How about this oaks:

“Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that ‘97% of scientists agree’ that climate change is man-made and dangerous,” the authors write. “This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”

With these words, the authors begin a detailed analysis of one of the most controversial topics of the day. The authors make a compelling case against claims of a scientific consensus. The purported proof of such a consensus consists of sloppy research by nonscientists, college students, and a highly partisan Australian blogger. Surveys of climate scientists, even those heavily biased in favor of climate alarmism, find extensive disagreement on the underlying science and doubts about its reliability.

The authors point to four reasons why scientists disagree about global warming: a conflict among scientists in different and often competing disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.

WHAT A MESS OAKS BUT YOUNG STAV SUCKS IT ALL UP LIKE THE GULLIBLE FISH HE IS! REDSTINK AND THE STINKVIS TWITS PLEASE ALSO PAY ATTENTION.

The authors offer a succinct summary of the real science of climate change based on their previously published comprehensive review of climate science in a volume titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical ScienceThey recommend that policymakers resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of the IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.” WHEN YOU CANT WIN THE ARGUMENT SILENCE YOUR OPPONENTS. ITS WHAT THE RABID MARXIST LEFTISTS LIKE REDROOISTINK TRY TO DO OR APPLAUD THOSE DOING SO.

GO TO THIS LINK TO SEE BOOK:

CLIMATE HOAX BOOK


Feb 16, 2021, 13:57

Wow there Beeno, you might want to slow down with all the copying and pasting you're doing or you will break your mouse and keyboard.

Feb 16, 2021, 18:52

Hi there Stav you nutter. 

Your side if the argument have been proved wrong time and again. The predictions have been absurd and so embarrassing. 

Tell me how Co2 causes both global warming and cooling. 

A tip - best not argue with Dr Moz he has your number every time. :D

Feb 16, 2021, 19:08

I'm the nutter?

As you so frequently post...Bwahahahaahahahhah


Feb 16, 2021, 20:52

A visitor takes a picture of the Chicago skyline along the city's lakefront as temperature hung around -20 degrees on Jan. 30, 2019.

Hey, this global warming is a bit confusing.

Feb 16, 2021, 20:54

In the distance you can see Trump Tower.

Feb 16, 2021, 21:10

"Hey, this global warming is a bit confusing."

No problem, I can clarify, that picture is not a picture of the globe.

Feb 16, 2021, 21:19

Gosh, could you give me a link....hahaha. Do you think Dublin city centre would fit inside Trump Tower?

 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top