cooltigger21 0 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. What they don't tell you is how they arrive at that number. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Best%20of%2010/10&utm_term=VDHM%20Reader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. That's not the right claim. It's 97% of climate scientists. And yes that's consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. That's not the right claim. It's 97% of climate scientists. And yes that's consensus. No its not. It is the % of studies that have included the words "global warming" whether they agreed with it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. That's not the right claim. It's 97% of climate scientists. And yes that's consensus. No it's not either. The bigger question is how big of a problem it is and what, if anything, needs to be done. So far the solutions are economically disastrous with minuscule benefits. When you stop trying to take away freedom and prosperity and give massive amounts of power to the federal government, then I might consider going along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. That's not the right claim. It's 97% of climate scientists. And yes that's consensus. No its not. It is the % of studies that have included the words "global warming" whether they agreed with it or not. They quantified the agrees and disagrees in the Cook 2013 study. They also had authors self rate their papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. That's not the right claim. It's 97% of climate scientists. And yes that's consensus. No it's not either. The bigger question is how big of a problem it is and what, if anything, needs to be done. So far the solutions are economically disastrous with minuscule benefits. When you stop trying to take away freedom and prosperity and give massive amounts of power to the federal government, then I might consider going along. It is consensus. I like how you said that they don't tell us how they arrive at that number. If Mr. Tuttle had actually bothered to look at any of the studies he's attacking, he'd realize that they all go into great detail about how they arrived at that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Cooks 2013 haqs been roundly criticized as lumped together junk. Not going to beat the dead horse here anymore. The unemployed cartoonist finned up a bogus report that is now urban myth. Popular Technology.net "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" Copyright © 2004-2015 Popular Technology Friday, December 19, 2014 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013)has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it, "The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [uK] that the energy minister should cite it." - Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA) The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science. Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that theyfalsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreedwith their abstract ratings. [ Journal Coverage ] Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDFOctober 2014) Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDFOctober 2014) Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) [ Media Coverage ] American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014) Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014) Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014) Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013) Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013) Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013) Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate changeOctober 16, 2013) Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013) Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014) Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014) The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014) The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013) The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014) The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013) The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013) The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014) The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013) The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom) The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013) The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014) The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014) Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014) WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy) [ Organization Coverage ] Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013) Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014) Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013) Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013) Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs(PDF) (February 3, 2014) Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math MythFebruary 4, 2014) George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014) John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014) Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014) Global Warming Policy Foundation -Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013) Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014) National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming) National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014) Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013) The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014) [ Weblog Coverage ] Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014) Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013) Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013) Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013) Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013) Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% feud) Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013) JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for) JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97%) JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paperSeptember 24, 2013) JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014) JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret) JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014) José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%) José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasionSeptember 9, 2014) Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013) Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013) Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013) Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd)) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014) Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014) The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means) The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013) The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013) The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013) The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) -Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013) The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013) The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS!) The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013) WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013) WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013) WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013) WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013) WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013) WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013) WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013) WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013) WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013) WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014) WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014) WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014) WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014) WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014) WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014) Rebuttals to Criticisms: Critism: Tol (2014) was rejected by other journals for being flawed. Rebuttal: Dr. Tol's paper was censored by Environmental Research Letters (ERL), which conveniently has multiple alarmists scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick andStefan Rahmstorf) and rejected by two other journals for being "out of scope" (off topic) not flawed. Critism: Tol (2014) has 24 errors in it. Rebuttal: Dr. Tol refuted all of these claims in apost online and in his published rejoinder. Andrew Share 3 comments: Geoff Brown12/19/2014 6:52 PM There are more than a few piece rebutting the "97% Consensus" on the Australian Climate Sceptics blog, including:- http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/consensus-myth-97-of-nothing.html http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-97-nonsense-re-examined.html http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/cook-wrong-on-consensus-monckton_1.html Reply Unknown12/19/2014 10:03 PM Okay, okay, okay! So the 97 Percent is reduced to the Consensus of the Few! Well...Okay! but... Science doesn't run on consensus. Hey, the Few could be right!! <> Reply Adrian Vance12/20/2014 3:43 PM This was a bad joke when Naomi Oreskes started it at Scripps Institoot for the fleecing of rich San Diego widows. She was in the great traditions of Roger Revelle and Charles David Keeling in faking data to make it appear man had power over the atmosphere. (Pardon me while I vomit.) The story went on with the Doran-Zimmerman fraud at the U of I, Chicago campus. I document the whole thing in my book "Vapor Tiger" on sale at Amazon.com in paperback or Kindle and have gotten nine five star reviews! Google "Two Minute Conservative" for facts, ideas and more. Reply ‹ › Home View web version Powered by Blogger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 I see a lot of sound and fury, but not much in the way of refutation there, DKW. If you want to discuss one, pick it out and let's go. You're better than to resort to a Gish Gallop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 97 Articles isnt much? <SMH> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 97 Articles isnt much? <SMH> "If you want to discuss one, pick it out and let's go. You're better than to resort to a Gish Gallop." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 97 Articles isnt much? <SMH> "If you want to discuss one, pick it out and let's go. You're better than to resort to a Gish Gallop." "The consensus is that the 97% consensus is fiction."Not going waste one more second of my life on this. Cook had his assistants counted any research using the term "global warming" as being pro global warming. The consensus is there and it is very high, maybe 85+%, but the 97% is total fiction. Not going to beat another dead horse. Peace. Out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 97 Articles isnt much? <SMH> "If you want to discuss one, pick it out and let's go. You're better than to resort to a Gish Gallop." "The consensus is that the 97% consensus is fiction."Not going waste one more second of my life on this. Cook had his assistants counted any research using the term "global warming" as being pro global warming. The consensus is there and it is very high, maybe 85+%, but the 97% is total fiction. Not going to beat another dead horse. Peace. Out. Yeah. That is flat wrong. You haven't even bothered to read the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 We always hear about how 97% of scientists agree with the global warming claims. That's not the right claim. It's 97% of climate scientists. And yes that's consensus. No it's not either. The bigger question is how big of a problem it is and what, if anything, needs to be done. So far the solutions are economically disastrous with minuscule benefits. When you stop trying to take away freedom and prosperity and give massive amounts of power to the federal government, then I might consider going along. Well, at least you finally admit the perspective you take on this. It has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is true, it's all about our response. Clearly you don't understand the full implications of the impact that AGW will have this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Firstly: Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/ secondly: London 12 October: In an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, former IPCC delegate Dr Indur Goklany calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide, which he says has many benefits for the natural world and for humankind.Dr Goklany said: “Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%. This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature”. Pointing to estimates that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on global crop production is about $140 billion a year, he notes that this additional production has helped reduce hunger and advance human well-being. But the benefits go much further than this. It is not only crops that benefit from this “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect”: almost without exception, the wild places of the Earth have become greener in recent decades, .largely as a direct result of carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been shown that carbon dioxide can increase plants’ water-use efficiency too, making them more resilient to drought, so that there is a double benefit in arid parts of the world. And as Dr Goklany points out: “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters these benefits are firmly established and are being felt now. Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.” In a powerful foreword to the report, the world-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson FRS endorses Goklany’s conclusions and provides a devastating analysis of why “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, arguing that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”. The report is available here: benefits-of-co2 (PDF, 2.7mb) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/12/climate-doomsayers-ignore-benefits-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-now-compiled-in-a-new-report/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Wonder why the deniers haven't come up with their own number for the percent of climate scientists that are convinced AGW is real? Don't like 97%? Then what do they say it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Wonder why the deniers haven't come up with their own number for the percent of climate scientists that are convinced AGW is real? Don't like 97%? Then what do they say it is? There is no consensus. Only scattered agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Wonder why the deniers haven't come up with their own number for the percent of climate scientists that are convinced AGW is real? Don't like 97%? Then what do they say it is? There is no consensus. Only scattered agreement. "Scattered agreement?" That's delusional. If that were true, you wouldn't see position statements by every single significant scientific society in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 When they understand what has happened to them, maybe that will change. Cut federal funding and watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 When they understand what has happened to them, maybe that will change. Cut federal funding and watch. That doesn't make any sense, but I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It means they have been depending on data and conclusion clearly biased. When they finally accept how badly they have been mislead. CO2 is good for growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,147 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 LOL AFTiger whips out the long since discredited Oregon petition: What the "petition" does in fact have is (approximately) 31,072 largely unverifiable signatures on slips of paper which um... isn't really exactly the same thing. Hmmm, a petition of scientists of questionable repute to challenge a mainstream scientific view using a failed argument from authority — that's a new one!The barely legible sample signature on the example slip used by the project could be read to be "Edward Teller," and the word "physics" looks like it was scrawled by a six-year-old. It would obviously be impossible to verify data provided in such a format, and it looks like an invitation for every Tom, Dick and Harry who holds an opinion to send in a form and claim to be a Ph.D. All it takes is a scribble, and you too can have a Ph.D.! The Seattle Times reported that it includes names such as: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor), "Robert C. Byrd" (the Senator), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author), not to mention a Spice Girl, aka. Geraldine Halliwell: the petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." The petition also contains duplicate signatures, signatures of a last name only with not even a first initial, and even "signatures" attributed to corporations. Although as Mitt Romney taught us, corporations are people too. In an interview the Robinson, said, "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake." Scientific American examined the list and came to the conclusion that a large percentage of the alleged Ph, D. signatures probably are fake. Notwithstanding its rather dubious methodology, that bastion of scientific rigor, Fox News, has quoted the petition in its news stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 What is this Oregon petition you speak of? It looks more like a Democrat voter registration drive. Why don't the models fit the data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 What is this Oregon petition you speak of? It looks more like a Democrat voter registration drive. Why don't the models fit the data? Man, you really are clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.