Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming Thomas Lifson The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." "These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases." The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950. Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example: The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One way or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.
EPA ‘Public Listening Session’ Turns Into Sierra Club Talking Session → The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts 52percent_AMS-vs-97percent_SkS We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”. In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science. Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al². So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water. The survey is titled: Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹ Abstract Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community. From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported. The introduction says: Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%). So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort. The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts: “Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?” Respondent options were: Yes: Mostly human Yes: Equally human and natural Yes: Mostly natural Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause] Yes: Don’t know cause Don’t know if global warming is happening Global warming is not happening Here’s the kicker: Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
see all the evidence of why climate change is a leftist hoax which made hypocrite ALGORE a billion https://www.facebook.com/pages/What-global-warming/353331061357216 the founder of greenpeace today expressed sceptism about supposed climate change
The 10 Top Inconvenient Truths About the Climate Change Hoax
September 23, 2014 By TPNN Staff
Global Warming Climate Change high priests Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore, as well as all Democrats have been aggressively pushing the junk science, all as a deceptive attempt to feed their political greed and give government more control over our lives.
Largely ignored by the leftstream media is the fact that NOAA/NASA altered US temperatures showing a warming trend the last 130 years where none existed. This information is part of a larger set of data, proving that the climate change “experts” are advocates, not objective, thriving on a welfare system of research dependent on making global climate change a threat.
Scientists for years have been colluding with government regulators to exact control over our economic system, attempting to replace capitalism with communism/socialism through climate change nonsense, preying on weak-minded Democrats, liberals, and progressives.
It is important to understand a few things (see supporting documentation below list):
1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.
4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.
8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.
9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.
10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.
Despite the fact that CO2 levels have continued to increase, there has been no global warming for nearly two decades, the communist believers in the false religion formerly known as “global warming,” but now referred to as “climate change” (the climate has ALWAYS changed, fyi), these fanatical evangelists deny the fact there is no science proving manmade global warming.
After multiple accounts of proven scientific fraud, such as ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II, proving that taxpayer-bilking scientists doctored data to make it look like global warming existed when there was none, the sycophantic worshiping of this manmade religion can only be attributed to a serious mental condition.
RELATED: Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax
And Here’s the Proof:
Plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. (Reference: John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama)
All of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in. Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. (Reference: University of Copenhagen (2007, July 5). Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com)
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor). (Reference: Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,)
RELATED: VIDEO: Hypocrite Al Gore Leaves Climate March in Suburban SUV
April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling. This cooling was supposed to put us into another ice age.
An early indication that the Sun’s variability in ways other than total output had something to do with climate was the “Maunder Minimum“. The researcher Maunder found that during this cold period between 1645-1715 there was very little sunspot activity, and this discovery led to the naming of the phenomenon after him. It suggested that solar activity was coupled to climate and led to tabulations of sunspot number as an indication of solar activity. Even more compelling is the fact that there exists a well-documented Roman Warm period from the time of the Roman Caesars, and a Medieval Warm Period, both of which correlate with solar activity, but certainly can have nothing whatever to do with CO2 produced by any human industrial activities. Solar activity is now expected to decrease in a 30-year cycle. (reference: : Dr. Kelvin Kemm, engineering news)
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. the laws of physics don’t seem to allow CO2 it’s currently assumed place as a significant “greenhouse gas” based on present concentrations. if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit. (Reference: The Middlebury Community Network 2008)
RELATED: VIDEO: ‘Do You Agree with Obama’s Global Warming Alarmism?’ Watch What Dem-Invited Witnesses Say
Scientists have found that studying density of plant stomata can be a much more accurate measure of historical atmospheric carbon dioxide than ice core studies. Studies of plant stomata show that the currently held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view. CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm– the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm . Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over time spans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm– not the exception. (Retrieved 06/23/2014 from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html)
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 percent of its fresh water. Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980. Arctic ice is down less than 7%. winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. (Reference: NOAA GISS, website National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website of the University of Colorado).
U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 — in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant. Climate models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn’t predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003 — which is the opposite of what you’d expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. Even more importantly, the United States is currently undergoing the longest streak in modern history without a major landfall hurricane (June, 2014). The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise. Reference: Wall Street Journal, Feb 5th 2007
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change. Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains: " What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."
see also http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/#ixzz3KZ9KFZv7 This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.
Obama Expected to Bind US to CO2 Reduction at Paris Climate Meeting This Year
The world is looking forward to the 21st annual COP (conference of the parties to the global climate treaty), which will be held in Paris in December of 2015. It is hoped by many that Paris will end up with a climate protocol that will continue and even surpass the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which expired in 2012 and achieved practically nothing except to waste hundreds of billions that might have been better spent addressing genuine world problems -- without accomplishing its main goal of reducing global emissions of the much-maligned greenhouse gas CO2. On the contrary, emissions rose -- mainly from greatly increased industrial growth in China, which was fueled primarily by coal-fired power plants. At the same time, of course, global agriculture benefited from these higher levels of CO2, which is a natural plant fertilizer; the starving of the world really owe a vote of thanks to China.
Three “big guns” billionaires --Tom Steyer, Hank Paulson, Mike Bloomberg -- have already pledged their support for Paris; various scientific groups have already issued alarming Statements, without even the pretense of agreement from their memberships; even the Vatican’s Pope Francis plans to get into the act.
Meanwhile, many of the States are banding together to fight EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” in the courts. In addition, Congress is reminding the White House that any US commitment in Paris can be cancelled by a future president.
Sometimes I think the AGW crowd is like a swarm of locusts, moving from field to field. It’s actually a great strategy because there’s always going to be some location on earth [sic] where some kind of extreme is occurring — though, in most places, the weather is tranquil the majority of the time. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be so many people on the planet, which I suspect is another agenda that drives all this. Simply find a place where a rare event is occurring, then blast headlines that claim it’s because man is destroying the planet.
But do you hear anyone who has turned the focus to the California drought pointing out that the hysteria in the southern Plains is reversing?To be sure, the Pacific, which is going through a similar cycle as the 1950s when it suddenly cooled, then warmed for a couple of years, will cool again. And with so many more people living in the South and in California, this is an adaptation-to-nature problem, not a let’s-all-act-to-change-nature problem as it’s being advertised. But the media blindly follows the radical missive of the AGW agenda, so the disaster du jour rules the headlines.
There's little doubt about our changing climate. The fierce winters of yesterday are disappearing, tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming more vicious and weather trends aren't "trends" any more. They can't be depended upon. Just about anything can happen — and does.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”