The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    Well, the President himself used this 97% figure...and we know President Obama never stretches the truth for his partisan purposes......
    powerline blog:


    "....the only real surprise is that the number isn’t 100 percent.  There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasn’t changed or won’t change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon.  The leading so-called “skeptics"—like MIT’s Richard Lindzen or Cato’s Patrick Michaels or NASA’s John Christy or Roy Spencer—would be included in the 97 percent figure.  I’m guessing the outlying 3 percent are actually just anomalies of an arbitrary classification scheme (more on this in a moment) that serve the same point as a magician’s misdirection—to get you to buy an illusion.  In this case, the illusion is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in thinking we’re on the brink of catastrophe unless we hand our car keys over to Al Gore.


    ......Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming, and fewer still embrace giving the car keys over to Al Gore.  Only a handful deal with modeling of future climate change, and this is where the debate over climate sensitivity and the severe limitations of the models (especially as relates to clouds) is quite lively and—dare I say it—unsettled.  (Just read the IPCC Working Group I chapter on climate models if you don’t believe me.)  The “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change” cliché is an appalling abuse of science, and a bad faith attempt to marginalize anyone who dissents from the party line that we need to hand our car keys over to Al Gore.  The tacit message is: if you dissent from the party line, you must be in that 3 percent who think you shouldn’t brush your teeth, take painkillers for headches, etc.


    Where did this 97 percent figure come from?  This story has become interesting over the last few days.  The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles.  Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles?  Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say:


    We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 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. [Emphasis added.]
    Pause here and note that it is odd to see that some folks apparently haven’t gotten the memo that you’re not supposed to call it “global warming”—“climate change” is the term of art now.  Anyway, to continue, read this slowly and carefully:


    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
    Let’s translate: Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity.  In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus


    Again—the only mystery here is that the number isn’t 100 percent.  Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election.  For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called Kim Jong Il.


    The plot thickens.  Prof. Cook refused to share his data with anyone. Shades of the East Anglia mob and their tree ring data.  But also like the East Anglia mob, someone at the University of Queenland left the data in the ether of the internet, and blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses.  Then the predictable thing happened: the University of Queenland claims that the data was hacked, and sent Shollenbeger a cease-and-desist letter.  That just speaks lots of confidence and transparency, doesn’t it?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    Bull shat.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    There is no "unanimous scientific consensus", other than general notions that the climate is changing, as it always does, and there has been no global warming in 17 years.

    Of the climate scientists papers reviewed, only a handful directly addressed the critical issues...so the calculations are bogus...

    Kind of like saying, 98% of all climate scientists believe 9/11 was an inside job, because a review of thousands of papers did not reveal one statement that 9/11 was not an inside job...

    If the climate change 'deniers' are included in the broad consensus, then the consensus isnt really a consensus...

    The global warming politicized 97% agreement cover story is becoming unglued...

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    I guess it depends on how you define "climate scientist".

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from -V-. Show -V-'s posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked


    Hmmm.

    What's Al Gore gonna do with all those "car keys"?

    Al Gore is mentioned at least 3 times in the OP. (bias?)

    And Kim Jong .. What's he got to do with climate change?

    That OP looks like a rag-tag email generated by 'you know who'.

    Sorry .. But I don't buy it!

     

                                             ~ 'TRIP OUT' ~

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHCzTX80EIQ

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    Surprise.  Another opinion runs into the brick wall known as fact...and loses.

    There is no "debunking" here, just more dart throwing from the anti-science brigade.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    It's simple 97% get grants and playoffs from the government and they found 3 % who didn't believe it by mistake

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did this 97 percent figure come from?  This story has become interesting over the last few days.  The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles.

    [/QUOTE]


    Stop lying.

     

     

     

    http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png" rel="nofollow">http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png

     

     

    Pie chart representing geochemist James Lawrence Powell's review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change, written by 9,136 authors, published between Nov. 12, 2012 and December 31, 2013. Of all those hundreds of papers and thousands of researchers, Powell found one article, authored by a single scientist, that attributed climate change to something other than human actions: "The Role of Solar Activity in Global Warming," by S.V. Avakyan, appearing in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Science, Vol. 83, No. 3.

    Powell, a past president of Oberlin, Franklin and Marshall, and Reed colleges, invites anyone to reproduce his survey of the science:

    Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

    Powell's earlier survey of peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and Nov. 12, 2013, resulted in this pie chart:

    http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The 98% figure does NOT come from a review of only 77 studies, as the right-wing recycled lie pretends. If you want to disprove the 98% claim, read Powell's study, then read at least the synopsis of all 2,258 papers he read in full. In fact, it appears 98% is understating the agreement by a long shot.

    99.96% 11/12-12/13

    99.83% 1991-2012

    Is it possible they're all wrong? Yes.

    Is it likely? <Blank stare resulting from amazement at your profound stupidity>

    Must I consider whether your politically motivated "opinion" should be trusted or the almost unanimous scientific consenses? <sounds of lamentation and weeping>

     

    http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513" rel="nofollow">http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513

    [/QUOTE]

    Not that it makes any difference but there is an article/paper/whatever that has a 98% number based upon 77 responses on a survey sent to thousands of scientists.

    Regardless, the article you cite appears to be the origin of the 97% figure that is quoted ad nauseum without anyone realizing that it is basically a lie.

    Have you downloaded the spreadsheet of articles that you referenced? I have. Virtually NONE are about whether or not global warming/climate change/climate disruption is caused by man made emissions of CO2.

    The study is a lie. I have given you examples of why it is a lie. That is the problem with the issue. It is politicization of science. And even when it is pointed out that the one time head of the UN IPCC said climate change is not about climate change, it is about wealth redistribution, that goes ignored by supposedly intelligent libruls. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    99.83 percent of climate scientists think that a canard is a delicious french dessert.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did this 97 percent figure come from?  This story has become interesting over the last few days.  The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles.

    [/QUOTE]


    Stop lying.

     

     

     

    http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png" rel="nofollow">http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png

     

     

    Pie chart representing geochemist James Lawrence Powell's review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change, written by 9,136 authors, published between Nov. 12, 2012 and December 31, 2013. Of all those hundreds of papers and thousands of researchers, Powell found one article, authored by a single scientist, that attributed climate change to something other than human actions: "The Role of Solar Activity in Global Warming," by S.V. Avakyan, appearing in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Science, Vol. 83, No. 3.

    Powell, a past president of Oberlin, Franklin and Marshall, and Reed colleges, invites anyone to reproduce his survey of the science:

    Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

    Powell's earlier survey of peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and Nov. 12, 2013, resulted in this pie chart:

    http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The 98% figure does NOT come from a review of only 77 studies, as the right-wing recycled lie pretends. If you want to disprove the 98% claim, read Powell's study, then read at least the synopsis of all 2,258 papers he read in full. In fact, it appears 98% is understating the agreement by a long shot.

    99.96% 11/12-12/13

    99.83% 1991-2012

    Is it possible they're all wrong? Yes.

    Is it likely? <Blank stare resulting from amazement at your profound stupidity>

    Must I consider whether your politically motivated "opinion" should be trusted or the almost unanimous scientific consenses? <sounds of lamentation and weeping>

     

    http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513" rel="nofollow">http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513

    [/QUOTE]

    Demos.  Now there's a credible source.  EYEROLL.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did this 97 percent figure come from?  This story has become interesting over the last few days.  The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles.

    [/QUOTE]


    Stop lying.

     

     

     

    http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png" rel="nofollow">http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png" rel="nofollow">http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png

     

     

    Pie chart representing geochemist James Lawrence Powell's review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change, written by 9,136 authors, published between Nov. 12, 2012 and December 31, 2013. Of all those hundreds of papers and thousands of researchers, Powell found one article, authored by a single scientist, that attributed climate change to something other than human actions: "The Role of Solar Activity in Global Warming," by S.V. Avakyan, appearing in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Science, Vol. 83, No. 3.

    Powell, a past president of Oberlin, Franklin and Marshall, and Reed colleges, invites anyone to reproduce his survey of the science:

    Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

    Powell's earlier survey of peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and Nov. 12, 2013, resulted in this pie chart:

    http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/11/pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The 98% figure does NOT come from a review of only 77 studies, as the right-wing recycled lie pretends. If you want to disprove the 98% claim, read Powell's study, then read at least the synopsis of all 2,258 papers he read in full. In fact, it appears 98% is understating the agreement by a long shot.

    99.96% 11/12-12/13

    99.83% 1991-2012

    Is it possible they're all wrong? Yes.

    Is it likely? <Blank stare resulting from amazement at your profound stupidity>

    Must I consider whether your politically motivated "opinion" should be trusted or the almost unanimous scientific consenses? <sounds of lamentation and weeping>

     

    http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513" rel="nofollow">http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513" rel="nofollow">http://boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/state-run-media-cnn-there-is-no-climate-change-debate/80/7030513

    [/QUOTE]

    Not that it makes any difference but there is an article/paper/whatever that has a 98% number based upon 77 responses on a survey sent to thousands of scientists.

    Regardless, the article you cite appears to be the origin of the 97% figure that is quoted ad nauseum without anyone realizing that it is basically a lie.

    Have you downloaded the spreadsheet of articles that you referenced? I have. Virtually NONE are about whether or not global warming/climate change/climate disruption is caused by man made emissions of CO2.

    The study is a lie. I have given you examples of why it is a lie. That is the problem with the issue. It is politicization of science. And even when it is pointed out that the one time head of the UN IPCC said climate change is not about climate change, it is about wealth redistribution, that goes ignored by supposedly intelligent libruls. 

    [/QUOTE]

    To progressives, truth doesn't matter.  What matters is control.  As it has been said:

    a liberal vegetarian doesn't eat meat.

    a progressive vegetarian doesn't want YOU to eat meat.

    The constant drumbeat of "the science is settled" is the signal of a lack of desire to discuss.  Just obey the jackbooted thugs of progressivism.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    The amazing thing is that the left is clinging to the myth of AGW like a fundamentalist clings to the idea that the universe was created in seven days. In both cases my answer to them is: "just look at the evidence people."

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The amazing thing is that the left is clinging to the myth of AGW like a fundamentalist clings to the idea that the universe was created in seven days. In both cases my answer to them is: "just look at the evidence people."

    [/QUOTE]

    Except there's plenty of scientific evidence to prove the former to a rather high degree of probability...

    ...and not so much for the latter...except a book written by a bunch of proselytizers 2000 years ago.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:



    In response to StalkingButler's comment:



    The amazing thing is that the left is clinging to the myth of AGW like a fundamentalist clings to the idea that the universe was created in seven days. In both cases my answer to them is: "just look at the evidence people."


    Think for yourself, question authority.


    Actually, the universe was created in 6 days, not 7, according to creationism. If you're going to question them, do so with the proper "facts".




    Might as well say the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure...


    ...makes about as much sense.


    (h/t: DA)


     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The amazing thing is that the left is clinging to the myth of AGW like a fundamentalist clings to the idea that the universe was created in seven days. In both cases my answer to them is: "just look at the evidence people."

    [/QUOTE]

    Except there's plenty of scientific evidence to prove the former to a rather high degree of probability...

    ...and not so much for the latter...except a book written by a bunch of proselytizers 2000 years ago.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you are mistaken.  The Koran was written only about 1400 years ago.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The amazing thing is that the left is clinging to the myth of AGW like a fundamentalist clings to the idea that the universe was created in seven days. In both cases my answer to them is: "just look at the evidence people."

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, the universe was created in 6 days, not 7, according to creationism. If you're going to question them, do so with the proper "facts".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Seeing we are talking about facts:

    The English translation does not explain this properly.  Here's an overview.

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The amazing thing is that the left is clinging to the myth of AGW like a fundamentalist clings to the idea that the universe was created in seven days. In both cases my answer to them is: "just look at the evidence people."

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, the universe was created in 6 days, not 7, according to creationism. If you're going to question them, do so with the proper "facts".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Seeing we are talking about facts:

    The English translation does not explain this properly.  Here's an overview.

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html

     

    [/QUOTE]

    whoosh.............

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, I would do that, too, if I were you.  Your other option is to consider that your "truth" is innacurrate.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I still haven't seen deniers picking any other field in which nearly all scientists agree on a point, and then arguing that all those scientists are idiots and/or part of a grand conspiracy to fabricate the point in order to get money.

    [/QUOTE]

    why should we?   I am  not aware of any other set of science models that are failing to deliver on their predictions being used to push political agendas.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The plot thickens: “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard is being definitely debunked

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I still haven't seen deniers picking any other field in which nearly all scientists agree on a point, and then arguing that all those scientists are idiots and/or part of a grand conspiracy to fabricate the point in order to get money.

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you have a specific field in mind?

     

Share