Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post writes:
The ‘scientific consensus’ about global warming turns out to have a lot more to do with manipulating the numbers
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.’s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lies, damned lies and consensus statistics……..
An example of getting the predetermined answer that you wanted and of absolutely horrible scientific method on the part of everyone involved.
erik sloneker says:
January 4, 2011 at 11:19 am
Wow….an overwhelming majority of the cherry-picked 77 scientists agree with the IPCCs conclusions.
———————————————————————————–
Regarding the other two of the 79 scientists, rumor has it that one has been reassigned to the Ivory Coast and the other to Somalia…:-)
Question 2 does not even mention CO2. Nor does it incorporate the first question, so it can be answered without regard to the direction of temperature change, or the era for which any change is considered relevant.
The 97% agreement is therefore only that some degree of human causation exists for the temperature going either up or down (not staying the same) during the span of human history on the planet.
This means that any paraphrase of this study’s conclusion of 97% agreement that specifically refers to CO2, warming, or the fossil fuel era is not based on the question that was actually asked.
Some years ago, I would have been flabergasted by this revelation. However, nowadays, nothing surprises me about the robustness of their data, the science underpinning the theory (or more accurately conjecture) or the statistical methods of analysis employed.
Is this the same study that Oreskes uses and gets quoted by the AGW blogs? They also use the term 97 percent of “publishing climate scientists”.
If there was this consensus we would be feeling the effect on WUWT. Your site posts all sorts of well written and thoughtful objections to the “consensus” opinion and invites comments from readers. The comments threads often turn into discussions about the underlying science and interpretation of that science, often between scientists, and the merits of the article are put through the fire of open debate.
If there are all these scientists who have been convinced that the IPCC have got it right they would be challenging the postings and putting their views across. The reality is that most people who are interested in open debate are sceptical of the IPCC reports and looking for explanations of climate variability that do not rely on simplistic theories of CO2 induced warming such as are found in the IPCC reports.
By the way Nature are in a panic about why no one believes in global warming any more: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110104/full/news.2011.701.html
I am sure their are plenty of readers of WUWT who could give them a better explanation than found in their article.
Anyhow… a consensus of opinions is just that: opinions; especially when they’re influenced by grants, politics and ideology. Only facts count to me. I want real proofs that their computer models tell the truth. So far they’ve failed to convince me.
There is a new consensus developing within the MSM that climate change stories are so past their sell-by-date.
Anyone in the UK who now runs an advert that even mentions the “consensus” is an idiot because there’s no way on earth the Advertising Standards Authority will accept this bogus idea now!
To rephrase an old advert:
“9/10 cats prefer [CAT-FOOD]”
now becomes:
9/10 cats that already eat [CAT-FOOD] and have been specially selected because they are the types of cat that like [CAT-FOOD] and whose owners also want their cats to like [CAT-FOOD] because they have a financial interest in [CAT-FOOD] … were said to prefer [CAT-FOOD]
Wow, I don’t know what were the survey questions but from their numbers, a big 0.73 % of the Earth scientists thought humans contributed to climate change. (i.e. 75/10,257)
Well I guess I’ll just have to surrender! After all, dozens of “climate scientists” couldn’t possibly be wrong, could they?
Ugh. She got her Master’s Thesis for what amounts to a small Blog Post of statistical work.
Also, anyone submitting a conclusion based on polling data from 77 people should be laughed out of the room when she presents it.
Still on the old “consensus” bandwagon. I do not like bandwagons. Who makes those damn things anyway? Sorry Piers, but “the coming ice age” is also a bandwagon. It IS coming, but no one can say with absolute certainty when. Fortunately the AGW bandwagon has been recalled due to major mechanical failures throughout the vehicle.
Forgot to mention, cudos to Lawrence Solomon for his efforts!! All journalists should do as much homework as Solomon does.
“CodeTech says: January 4, 2011 at 11:04 am
This has become a mass insanity. Will it ever end? I don’t think so. Many people I talk to are inherently unable to accept that they have been fooled, and will make incredible leaps of logic to justify an unjustifiable belief.
It may be generations before people can finally look back at this mass insanity objectively enough to see it for what it is.”
Admitting one is wrong is hard, except for those of us who are married. We’re used to it!
Seriously when you try to talk to people about it I usually get one of these:
A) You can pay scientists to say anything and big oil has lots of money.
B) You are just a crazy conspiracy nut.
C) No that isn’t true
Total denial even when faced with verifiable facts. My favorite was one who refused to accept that water vapor was the major greenhouse gas. It just has to be CO2.
Is this ‘thesis’ available online anywhere? I’d like to know the real figures!
Also, as an earth scientist, I certainly don’t recall being asked about AGW, or seeing anything about it – so presumably, they only asked US earth scientists folks?
And finally, if the MSc was awarded on the basis of a fraudulent or flawed thesis, (what did it actually conclude?) surely that cannot be correct (its some years ago since I did mine, but a thesis would normally be reviewed by at least one external reviewer/examiner?)
They would’ve had a little to show for if them 75 mega hippie minds actually would have known instead of mere thought.
Does anyone know if we can see the MS thesis on-line in full?
What do you expect
one tree, 75 scientists
and the 1930’s just keep getting cooler
To borrow and expand upon a comment left at the Solomon post site:
“This just in: A shocking 97% of unemployed persons polled support continuing of unemployment benefits”
TimM @ur momisugly January 4, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Perhaps we could sue to ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide in its gaseous form. A Supreme Court which would find CO2 to be a pollutant would probably do so for H2O as well.
Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin’ that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone’s tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D.A.
Look out kid
Don’t matter what you did
Walk on your tiptoes
Don’t try “No-Doz”
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don’t need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows
Robert Allen Zimmerman
Speaking of the IPCC and the mythical “consensus”, let us not forget that a mere six months ago, no less a luminary than Mike Hulme had burst that particular bubble. See:
Honey, I shrunk the consensus!
Ms Zimmerman’s thesis is available here for $20.
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/4281091