97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming

97_percent_bustedThe 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.


[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy PolicyQuantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy PolicyQuantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & EducationClimate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)


[ Media Coverage ]

American ThinkerClimate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
BreitbartObama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free PressSorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial PostMeaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial PostThe 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
ForbesGlobal Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox NewsBalance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald SunThat 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power LineBreaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
SpikedGlobal warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily CallerWhere Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The GuardianThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New AmericanGlobal Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New AmericanCooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New AmericanClimategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot PostThe 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot PostDebunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-EnterpriseDon’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa TribuneAbout that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street JournalThe Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy MediaBandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WNDBlack Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)


[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise InstituteConsensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall AllianceClimate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of ScienceFriends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of ScienceOnly 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of ScienceClimate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall InstituteThe Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke FoundationThe 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty FundDavid Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy FoundationConsensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy FoundationFraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy AnalysisThe Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy ResearchDo 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific InternationalExposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland InstituteWhat 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 AuditUnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc.The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc.The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc.The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate ResistanceTom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNovaCook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNovaThat’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova“Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNovaJohn Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNovaUni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNovaCook 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% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science PublicWhat’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.netThe Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.netCook’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 (August 24, 2013)
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 (August 27, 2013)
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 (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
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 BlackboardI Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The BlackboardOn the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The BlackboardNir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The BlackboardWhy Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The BlackboardPossible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The BlackboardBias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The LidClaim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the ClimateCook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWTThe Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWTSelf 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)
WUWTOn the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWTWhat Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWTCooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWTJoin my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWTThe 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWTJohn Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWTAn Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWTThe climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWTThe 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)
WUWTIf 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)


Compiled by populartechnology.net and reproduced here with permission

269 thoughts on “97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming

  1. Of course, even if the 97% figure had been right it doesn’t change the fact that the thermometers disagree.

    Who has authority? The opinion of “experts” or actual reality?

    Still, it’s good to see the Guardian giving Richard Tol a forum to debunk their own Dana Nuccitelli.

    • Richard S.J. Tol on December 19, 2014 at 6:42 am

      “Courtney: The Guardian’s hand was forced.”

      Richard S.J. Tol,

      You comment is very interesting to me. I would appreciate knowing more on that subject.

      Richard, can you further expand or can you link to any backstories on why and how and when the Guardian’s hand was forced to publish critiques of Nuccitelli.

      Happy Holiday season to you.

      John

      • This is my editorial correction to my comment above (John Whitman on December 19, 2014 at 10:26 am) in response to Tol’s comment (Richard S.J. Tol on December 19, 2014 at 6:42 am).

        One line of my comment should be changed to:

        “[. . .]

        You Your comment is very interesting to me. I would appreciate knowing more on that subject.

        [. . .]”

        John

      • John, Paul
        The Guardian has appeal procedures, which are typically used to stall complaints. Occasionally, as today with Walport v Vaughan, a complaint gets through.

        In my case, I have two hypotheses. Either the watchdog was away and replaced by someone young, naive and honest, or Dana was in the bad books of the watchdog.

      • Richard S.J. Tol on December 19, 2014 at 2:44 pm said,

        John, Paul

        The Guardian has appeal procedures, which are typically used to stall complaints. Occasionally, as today with Walport v Vaughan, a complaint gets through.

        In my case, I have two hypotheses. Either the watchdog was away and replaced by someone young, naive and honest, or Dana was in the bad books of the watchdog.

        . . . & . . .

        Poptech says on December 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm

        John,

        Dr. Tol detailed this here,
        http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-guardian-and-right-to-reply.html

        Richard S.J. Tol & Poptech,

        Richard, I appreciate your reply. And, Poptech, thanks for that link to Richard’s discussion of his two emails that eventually were published by the Guardian in response to two of Nuccitelli’s Guardian articles about him.

        Another speculative thought, the Guardian watchdog that oversees their complaints / appeals processes might have been advised by the Guardian’s legal counsel that legal liabilities were developing with Dana Nuccitelli’s articles about Richard in the Guardian. Perhaps legal counsel may have had the watchdog mitigate any liabilities somewhat by allowing Richard’s responses.

        Richard, I was impressed generally with your two emails sent to the Guardian, although we might not be on the same page about the significance of climate change in the past 150 years. I wish you a Happy Holiday Season.

        John

      • John:
        I’ve 5 other complaints running with the Guardian. These two were uncharacteristic.

        Although I interpret the evidence differently than many people here, I guess I would agree with most here on the importance of integrity and transparency in research, and the primacy of observations.

        Enjoy the holidays.

        Richard

  2. It’s laughable that the climate fearosphere resorted to this logical fallacy- an appeal to authority- as a major talking point. Cook’s efforts to prop up the original 97% meme,which was derived from a 2- question survey with less than 100 respondents, just added to the farce.

    At this point in the game, anyone that trots out “the 97%” to make their point, proves themselves to be either a know nothing, true believer, or a willful liar- a propagandist.

  3. Where are the trolls ? It’s been an hour already !
    They must ALL be on Holiday !
    Or are they hiding under their beds…..(8 >))

      • Really, Peter? Anyone who disagrees is a troll? Maybe you’re new to the web. A troll is someone who indulges in personal attacks rather than engaging with the issues.

    • danallosso

      You assert

      Really, Peter? Anyone who disagrees is a troll? Maybe you’re new to the web. A troll is someone who indulges in personal attacks rather than engaging with the issues.

      NO. A troll is someone who attempts to disrupt discussion of the issues by deflecting threads onto other subjects often by use of personal attacks.

      An example of successful trolling is provided by your post I am answering.
      Your post deflects from the subject of this thread (i.e. “articles refuting the 97% consensus on global-warming”) onto debate of the nature of trolling while making an attack on Peter by asserting – without evidence – that he claims anyone who disagrees is a troll.

      Pleasd now return to the subject of the thread.

      Richard

      • So Richard according to what you’ve said, the post from “Sweet Old Bob” appears to fall under your classification of “trolling” as not only does it deflect from the subject matter, but it is precatagorizing his targeted set of people. Is this correct?

      • David Socrates

        You provide another example of trolling by writing to me

        So Richard according to what you’ve said, the post from “Sweet Old Bob” appears to fall under your classification of “trolling” as not only does it deflect from the subject matter, but it is precatagorizing his targeted set of people. Is this correct?/blockquote>
        The post from “Sweet Old Bob” pertains to responses to the subject in the thread. It is not trolling.

        Your post attempts to deflect from discussion of the thread’s subject and responses to it by misrepresenting both my words and the words of “Sweet Old Bob”. It is trolling.

        Please return to the subject of the thread.

        Richard

      • I get it now, Richard. If Old Bob asks “where are the trolls” and then his buddy Peter points to my post, that’s okay. If David challenges you on it, that’s trolling. My post was about whether 97% of scientists support climate change. I didn’t really understand, I guess, that you’re not even really arguing that point (have you conceded it?). You’re only really arguing about the study.

        I was also questioning the validity of the 97 articles (as well as the 1350 in the populartechnology list) as proofs of anything. Yes, it’s proof there’s a debate. that’s all.

        Maybe you’ve confused me with someone who believes we know everything we need to know about climate and can stop looking. I’m afraid once again, as when you call me a troll, you’re projecting.

      • David Socrates,

        So Richard according to what you’ve said, the post from “Sweet Old Bob” appears to fall under your classification of “trolling” as not only does it deflect from the subject matter, but it is precatagorizing his targeted set of people.

        The supreme irony here is that the original article itself is an example of the very thing it attempts to refute; namely, look at all these references which say your bandwagon fallacy is wrong. To dump a barrel of red herring over the transom and then complain that one’s adversaries smell blood in the water only makes the desperate vacuity of the original argument stand out in that much sharper relief.

      • David Socrates, danallosso and Brandon Gates

        Please continue addressing each other your irrelevant, untrue and illogical twaddle. Any time you waste doing that cannot be used to disrupt the thread.

        Richard

      • David Socrates, danallosso and Brandon Gates

        I see the chief cheerleader for trolls, John Whitman, has joined in with you. Please encourage his involvement in your group so this thread is also not bothered by his nonsense.

        You can each and all enjoy gazing at the navels of each other in this sub-thread that sensible people can ignore.

        Richard

      • Richard, Richard, you and your food fights, do you never learn? If you are going to criticise someone for a deflection of the subject in hand, do it with the originator, not the respondent. Old Bob raised the issue, so by your criteria that makes him the Troll. if you select the respondents that means you, I and anyone else who responded must also be trolls which is obviously and patently nonsense. So, back to the study. As you know I tend to agree with the accepted scientific ideas on climate change, but I do agree that this was a dodgy paper which embarrassed our side and has thankfully been discredited. It undermines the argument of those of us who believe that climate change is being enhanced primarily due to emissions of Co2 in much the same way as Monckton undermines the valid points that skeptics make. We all have dodgy supporters we could do without, we just have to be brave enough to recognise them and speak out.

      • richardscourtney,

        It has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I thank you for the compliment. May I suggest adding a dollop of self-awareness to more be more completely faithful to the form. Aside from that small deficiency, a most worthy effort. Cheers.

    • Sweet Old Bob on December 19, 2014 at 7:31 am said,

      “Where are the trolls ? It’s been an hour already !
      They must ALL be on Holiday !
      Or are they hiding under their beds…..(8 >))”

      Sweet Old Bob,

      Congratulations! You initiated a sub-thread of namecalling people as trolls to this otherwise interesting thread. Unsurprisingly, the usual same old suspects forming the ‘anti-troll-vigilante-enforcement-squad’ showed up to spread the namecalling of people as trolls by labeling people as trolls who protested against your comment.

      Even so, I still wish you a Happy Holiday season.

      John

    • They are mopping up their puddles after reading the post about NOAA “tipping points” and rising sea levels. B. Gates made two puddles.

      • mpainter, and you are gazing into Richard’s navel according to his definition. Will the ironies never cease?

    • First I (John Whitman) said:

      Sweet Old Bob on December 19, 2014 at 7:31 am said,

      “Where are the trolls ? It’s been an hour already !
      They must ALL be on Holiday !
      Or are they hiding under their beds…..(8 >))”

      Sweet Old Bob,

      Congratulations! You initiated a sub-thread of namecalling people as trolls to this otherwise interesting thread. Unsurprisingly, the usual same old suspects forming the ‘anti-troll-vigilante-enforcement-squad’ showed up to spread the namecalling of people as trolls by labeling people as trolls who protested against your comment.

      Even so, I still wish you a Happy Holiday season.

      John

      Then richardscourtney said in response:

      richardscourtney says December 20, 2014 at 12:45 am

      David Socrates, danallosso and Brandon Gates,

      I see the chief cheerleader for trolls, John Whitman, has joined in with you. Please encourage his involvement in your group so this thread is also not bothered by his nonsense.

      You can each and all enjoy gazing at the navels of each other in this sub-thread that sensible people can ignore.

      Richard

      David Socrates, danallosso and Brandon Gates,

      I do not consider you trolls. Just as I do not consider as trolls ~99% the many commenters over the years here who were considered by a lot of regular commenters here (eg – richardscourtney) to be trolls.

      You are reasonably civil in your approaches to dissent with those here who, like myself, are critical of most fundamental aspects of the observationally challenged theory of significant climate change by CO2 from burning fossil fuels. When you remain civil then your dissent makes the discourse more circumspect.

      In my concept of ‘troll’ a person is a troll only if they are chronically and toxically uncivil to our blog host. Then they should be moderated with swift prejudice.

      Have a Happy Holiday Season.

      John

      • +100

        I hate seeing (on both sceptic and warmist blogs) anybody who disagrees being labelled a “troll”.
        Because I know the CAGW alarmism to be a complete crock, I actively want to debate with those from ‘the other side’.
        Only commenters who are rude, threatening, or downright obnoxious should be labelled trolls.
        David, Dan and Brandon have been polite – they are not trolls.

      • John and David,

        I’m certainly not above engaging with snark and sarcasm, but I make an effort to direct that at the argument, not the person. I appreciate it that you understand the difference and are willing to say so. Happy Holidays to you and yours.

      • FYI, the internet meme ‘troll’ originates from the verb ‘to troll’, and not the noun ‘troll’, even if the double meaning is used a lot on the webs. The latter implies rudeness or unpleasantness. The former is someone who looks for ways to outrage people to get them commenting regardless of the post’s relevance to the original subject. Related, feeding the troll is when you attack the troll in comments. Cause that’s exactly what the troll wants.

        So yes, Sweet Old Bob might have been the original troller — or not (his comment sounded like a just a random if offensive observation). But the posts afterwards.. danlosso was a troll. richardscourtney was a troll feeder, david socrates was a troll, brandon gates started good, and then started feeding the troll, and lastly, you, john whitman, fed the troll. As have I, except hopefully I’ve educated people to the meaning of this word..

  4. In spite of the problems the academy has communicating with the rest of the world, I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes. The closest match is the Science and Education article, which is about the 97% claim, not the information the 97% are reported to agree on. The article concludes, “either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain.”

    It’s easy to challenge the number 97, but really what’s the point? Okay, it may be 99% or 89%. There is broad consensus over the fact that something is happening and we are making it happen. Yes, there are a few (proportionally very few) articles denying this. They need to be reviewed with the same rigor as the articles documenting change. But at its most basic level, this is an argument about science informing public policy. And in practice, we don’t wait for a unanimous decision. We evaluate the science, and then act.

      • Not as new as you might imagine. Like many others, the “1350” article lumps together “arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].” That means if you write an article objecting to the most extreme claims about, for example, CAGW, you’re counted as one of the 1350 articles refuting all four. That doesn’t really add to a rational dialog.

      • It is a resource for skeptics that it is all inclusive, notice the title includes the word “Alarmism”. Considering alarmists try to pretend most of these papers do not exist it adds tremendously to a rational dialog. CAGW is one of the most prominent skeptic arguments and it makes perfect sense that papers supporting skeptic arguments against it would appear on such a resource.

      • danallosso , it is a strawman argument to claim that a paper on the list supporting a skeptic argument against CAGW would automatically support one against ACC or AGW. No such claim is made anywhere on the list. Any papers though that supported a skeptic argument against ACC or AGW would by default argue against Alarmism since it is challenging the very premise it is based on not the other way around. Notice the use of the word “or” not “and” in the sentence you quoted.

    • “this is an argument about science informing public policy. And in practice, we don’t wait for a unanimous decision. We evaluate the science, and then act.”
      Wrong. It’s about pseudoscience informing public policy, since there is no actual science showing that man’s CO2 has caused warming. None.

    • danallosso

      In spite of the problems the academy has communicating with the rest of the world, I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes.

      Who does this unknown, unseen, invisible so-called “peer review”?

      Who verifies these unknown “peer review” processors are correct? Are not themselves prejudiced, paid for and influenced and controlled by THEIR need for continued government funding and government approval and government resources competing AGAINST the ideas they themselves are rejecting and delaying and isolating? Who is this Star Chamber of invisible-but-supposedly-completely-accurate-and-all-knowing cloud controlling your religion of “peer reviewed” literature?

      When has “peer-review” and “consensus science” ever been right in the past? Has not EVERY scientific advance been made by individuals CHALLENGING “peer consensus”?

      • David Socrates
        You can get almost anything published using “open source” journals. Just pay their fee and they’ll “peer review” your article and publish it.

        You can get anything published using “government source” funding. Just accept their fee and they’ll pay your salary and pay the people who “peer review” your article and pay to publish it and pay for your next research proposal and pay your institution more money in the next year’s budget.

        Disagree with the government? Disagree with the institution? You are fired.

      • If that is the case, feel free to publish in one of the journals mentioned Baell’s list.

        Money talks, and if you pay enough, your work will pass “peer” review.

      • There’s nothing really unseen, invisible, or all-knowing about peer review. My religion? Really? You want to seriously examine which position more regularly uses RELIGION to support its position? Looks like your Star Chamber idea is more relevant as a projection than as an observation of how science works.

        That said, I agree with you that paradigms shift when the generally accepted model begins to break under the pressure of contradictory evidence. However, counting who is for and who is against is not a substitute for examining the theory and the evidence.

      • RACookPE1978,

        Who does this unknown, unseen, invisible so-called “peer review”?

        Peers. Ask Anthony if you don’t believe me, he’s the one who lead with: The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals …

        Who verifies these unknown “peer review” processors are correct?

        Well if we’re going to be cynical about it, more peers looking for more grant money of course.

        Are not themselves prejudiced, paid for and influenced and controlled by THEIR need for continued government funding and government approval and government resources competing AGAINST the ideas they themselves are rejecting and delaying and isolating?

        Everyone’s gotta eat, amigo. If you can think of a better way to do science which doesn’t involve wads of cash, now’s your chance to describe it.

        When has “peer-review” and “consensus science” ever been right in the past?

        There you go getting philosophical on us. You’ve obviously read your Agrippa.

        Has not EVERY scientific advance been made by individuals CHALLENGING “peer consensus”?

        I have two answers to that. Which. Oh heck, both:

        1) Based on what you just wrote above, how in heck is it you think you know that the challenges to the consensus were correct!?!

        2) Yes, exactly so. However they didn’t do it standing around blathering that all previous scientific advances had been made by challenging the consensus. They actually went out, did the research and made a sound argument against prevailing thought based on their results.

        Cue my standard challenge: produce a climate model based on both physical theory and empirical evidence which beats the IPCC-sanctioned projections and you will have the achievement of your fondest dreams. The rest of the world is waiting for you guys to stop flapping your lips and get on with it, but while we do there’s actual productive work to be done.

      • Brandon Gates
        To get up to speed on climate models, check out the temp. trend of the past several decades. Tells you all that you need to know.

      • mpainter,

        To get up to speed on climate models, check out the temp. trend of the past several decades. Tells you all that you need to know.

        Like I said, the world is waiting for this reserved wisdom to show itself. Until then, prudent, rational people will continue to use the best available information while constantly lobbying for, and getting, improvement.

      • You can get almost anything published using “open source” journals. Just pay their fee and they’ll “peer review” your article and publish it.

        http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

        David why are you smearing “Open Access” (not open source) journals? Beall’s list relates to vanity journals which have nothing to do with legitimate scholarly Open Access journals. Your knowledge on these subjects appears very limited.

    • Danayllosso says. . .There is broad consensus over the fact that something is happening and we are making it happen . .

      Actually, Dana, there isn’t. There are CLAIMS that things are worse, every storm is now blamed on ‘climate change’, and so on.

      But as far as temps, droughts, storms, etc., try looking at this link that (from WUWT References pages . .). Evaluate these first – this is REAL DATA – before making the statement that ‘something is happening’ – let alone that WE are making it happen . . .

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/us-weather-climate/us-climate-page . . .

    • danalloso says:

      There is broad consensus…

      The true consensus [for whatever that’s worth in science] is heavily on the side of skeptics.

      Maybe danalloso has never heard of the OISM Petition, in which more than 32,000 professional scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences — including more than 9,000 PhD’s — have stated in writing that human-emitted CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

      The names of every co-signer are available online. Each of them had to download the statement, sign a hard copy, and mail it in. No emails accepted. They went out of their way to take a stand.

      I doubt that danalloso could find one-tenth that number claiming to be in Cook’s mythical “97%”. I have challenged many other readers to find a comparable number, but none of them can do it. Thus, the ‘consensus’ is on the side of scientific skeptics.

      Isn’t WUWT wonderful? Folks like ‘danalloso’ can sift the truth out of all the propaganda. The question is, will he accept reality? Some do, some don’t.

      • Between 1970 and the present, there have been 1000-1800 PhDs awarded annually in the US in Physics alone. Of those, a small number have signed a petition. How heavily should this weigh on the issue?

      • Socrates and danalloso,

        Both of you are on the wrong track. With socrates, I’ll add: on the wrong track as usual.

        Normal people do not compare a subset with the biggest set they can find; they compare one group with another: skeptics with alarmists. That is exactly what the “97%” nonsense is doing: comparing the number of skeptics with the number of alarmists.

        You refuse to compare your pathetically small subset of climate alarmist scientists with the much larger group of scientific skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists, BTW).

        Since you cannot find even 10% of the OISM numbers, you improperly attempt to compare them with everyone. That is silly. It is as anti-science as everything else the alarmist crowd posts.

        Comparing the number of skeptics with everyone is like starting with a Graham’s Number of possible entities, and then comparing the 32,000 (American only) scientists to it. You would have a practically infinite number, versus 32,000. That would be as meaningles as what you’re trying to do. And of course, if that petition had been opened up to scientists worldwide, the numbers would have been about eighteen times (18X) higher. You’re lucky it was restricted to Americans, or your silly argument would look even more silly.

        The fact is, you simply can’t find very many alarmist scientists, and all your deflection can’t hide that fact. Alarmist scientists are in truth a very small, self-serving clique of rent-seekers riding the grant gravy train. What I don’t understand is why all the lemmings are still following them, when Planet Earth is clearly falsifying their global warming scare.

        At least alarmist scientists are cashing in on their Chicken Little hoax. They get fame and fortune for promoting the carbon scare. But what do you get out of it? Besides ridicule, I mean. Are you masochists? Maybe that would explain it…

      • dbstealey,

        Normal people do not compare a subset with the biggest set they can find; they compare one group with another: skeptics with alarmists. That is exactly what the “97%” nonsense is doing: comparing the number of skeptics with the number of alarmists.

        You refuse to compare your pathetically small subset of climate alarmist scientists with the much larger group of scientific skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists, BTW).

        Repeated for emphasis just so I can bask in the glorious self-refuting inconsistency of it all.

      • Repeated for emphasis just so I can bask in the glorious self-refuting inconsistency of it all.

        Which says exactly nothing. But that fits with most of your assertions, so carry on.

      • David Socrates,

        [looks up at dbstealey’s response] Well, you’re welcome, but think nothing of it. It was entirely my pleasure.

      • David Socrates and danallosso you both dodged the question,

        How many AGW proponent scientists have signed a petition endorsing their position?

    • “There is broad consensus over the fact that something is happening and we are making it happen.”

      …and cue the laugh track, turn it up to 10! THIS is why the USA should collapse. At last, the proof we have all benn looking for.

      Thanks for the good laugh Dan!

    • danallosso

      You said

      In spite of the problems the academy has communicating with the rest of the world, I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes. The closest match is the Science and Education article, which is about the 97% claim, not the information the 97% are reported to agree on.

      Well, the subject of this thread is the fallacious “97% claim” so what you claim to “think” is not relevant to the subject under discussion.

      Despite that, Richard M gave you a link which disproves what you claim to “think”.

      You have replied saying

      Not as new as you might imagine. Like many others, the “1350” article lumps together “arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].” That means if you write an article objecting to the most extreme claims about, for example, CAGW, you’re counted as one of the 1350 articles refuting all four. That doesn’t really add to a rational dialog.

      The link from Richard M is a complete proof that what you claim to “think” is very, very wrong. Indeed, as you admit, his link shows you are wrong for a variety of reasons pertaining to ACC, AGW, CAGW and DAGW. The only irrationality is provided by your posts.

      STOP TROLLING.

      Richard

      • Richard, you said I was deflecting the conversation. I was responding to the headline: “97 articles refuting the ‘97% consensus’ on global warming.” But you’re right, the text above the article list and the 97 articles seem much more concerned with the Cook article than with the 97% consensus. Personally, I couldn’t care less about the Cook article. I’m more interested in trying to get a dialog going about climate change between people who disagree. Feel free to NOT participate, though, if you can’t keep it civil.

      • danallosso

        I do NOT believe you when you write

        I’m more interested in trying to get a dialog going about climate change between people who disagree.

        I enjoy rational discussions with people who disagree with me: I learn from them.

        And if wanted to hear my own views I could talk to a mirror.

        But I object to and oppose propaganda and trolling in support of propaganda because it is intended to mislead and can mislead the uininformed. To date on WUWT your contributions ONLY consist of propaganda and trolling in support of propaganda intended to pretend the hypothesis of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) has scientific validity although at present it does not because it lacks any supporting evidence.

        Richard

      • Banal Looso:
        You have all the aspects of a troll. You are not the first to come here to drum up traffic for an alarmist blog, obviously. Others have before you, and you will follow them into oblivion.

    • There isn’t a single peer-reviewed paper denying the Easter Bunny exists, but that doesn’t make him real.

      If we truly evaluate the science, as you suggest, we see that the actual “number” is zero — 0% percent of climate models have proven to be accurate in predicting climate change (or lack thereof). This why recent papers push the predicted dire consequences out to 2050 or 2100.

      • Reg Nelson says:

        There isn’t a single peer-reviewed paper denying the Easter Bunny exists, but that doesn’t make him real.

        Hey! The Easter Bunny is every bit as real as CAGW!

    • danallosso
      …..It’s easy to challenge the number 97, but really what’s the point? Okay, it may be 99% or 89%. There is broad consensus over the fact that something is happening and we are making it happen……

      Listen here sunshine. Our greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere has caused some beneficial warming. Land use changes also have an effect locally. That’s it. End of story.

      I could now ask you did we cause AMO and PDO? Did we cause the 18 year surface temperature standstill? Did we cause the record sea ice extent of Antarctica? (the IPCC projected reduced extent)? Did we cause the recent snowy and cold winters in parts of the NH (the IPCC projected less snow)?

      In the decades to come answers will be much clearer and I won’t be buying that we caused a drop in global mean temps.

      Abstract
      An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367723a0.html

      Abstract
      Pacific Decadal Oscillation
      http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

      Paul Homewood
      AMO & PDO Cycles
      http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/amo-pdo-cycles/

      • Thanks Jimbo (or should I call you moonshine?). I’ve added Paul Homewood’s blog to my reader. And I’ve looked at the other two other references. I think it’s fair to say that both effects complicate the climate picture. The abstract claims the AMO “oscillations have obscured the greenhouse warming signal in the North Atlantic and North America.” Which is not the same as claiming they invalidate the greenhouse warming signal. Similarly the PDO discussion says “recognition of PDO is important because it shows that ‘normal’ climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human’s lifetime.” Again, this suggests to me that climate is extremely complex — not that PDO disproves carbon-induced warming.

      • danaslloso says:

        …they invalidate the greenhouse warming signal.

        There is no greenhouse warming signal. If you believe otherwise, then post a verifiable, empirical, testable measurement, quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming.

        Take your time. I’ll wait here.

    • I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes.

      Why would you find your strawman argument significant?

    • danallosso says “I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes. ”

      Well you might claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW arguments but you dont appear to have any idea about why its sceptics are sceptical. Most by far agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it will probably result in a warmer world. The main sceptical arguments are about the extent to which anthropogenic CO2 is causing the observed changes.

      “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

      says in its abstract…

      “Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming ”

      And scientists agreeing over the fundamental cause is very much wrong. Anthropogenic CO2 is likely to cause some warming but the is no evidence to show that it is causing most of that warming as per the IPCC claim. And most scientists know this even if they believe otherwise.

      You see, in science we like to base our knowledge on evidence, not belief. Models are simply not evidence.

      • Thanks for the comments, Tim. I’m a historian rather than a professional scientist. But the scientists I know might respond that once you begin using the word “evidence,” you already have a model in mind. Data is random, just as the past is “just one damn thing after another.” It becomes evidence and history when we begin to apply interpretation.

        I think the WUWT thread is pretty clear evidence that not everyone agrees on the points you stipulated about CO2. It would be nice if we could get beyond the irrationality displayed on that thread. I don’t assume anyone has all the answers yet. But I certainly don’t believe a site that operates the way WUWT does has ANY hope of contributing to progress.

      • The commenter known as danalloso has been permanently banned. The reason is that he is nothing more than a troll he comes here stirs up comments by his own way and then writes denigrating things on his own blog to justify his own hatred.

        Ignore him he’s useless, that decision is final.

        Decision has nothing to do with this particular comment in this thread but what is written elsewhere.

        He is the best example I’ve ever seen of the maxim ” don’t feed the troll”

      • danallosso writes “But the scientists I know might respond that once you begin using the word “evidence,” you already have a model in mind.”

        There is a big difference between using data to model say a global temperature anomaly with infilling and using a model to predict future warming. The first uses data as best one can and the second invents data which has no basis for reality.

      • danallosso also wrote “But I certainly don’t believe a site that operates the way WUWT does has ANY hope of contributing to progress.”

        Well that’s a matter of opinion. People come here to see the arguments for and against aspects of global warming and I’m certain that many people learn a great deal from this site. People who are incapable of critical thinking and cant see their own biases can be found on both sides of the debate.

      • dana,”Thanks for the comments, Tim. I’m a historian rather than a professional scientist” You said it. Thanks for that statement, as a historian my opinion is that you seem to have no clue how much science is involved in history, that statement alone classifies you and you can make your own decision on that one.

      • danallosso wrote “I’m a historian rather than a professional scientist.”

        Dont discount historians, they have a part to play in this too. So danallosso are you familiar with the history of Greenland? Would you say that there is less warming there now than when the Vikings were there? Or more? Or could you not say one way or the other?

        Opinions count so its fine to have them…

      • But the scientists I know might respond that once you begin using the word “evidence,” you already have a model in mind.

        Virtual reality is not evidence of anything but someone’s imagination.

        Why do people with no background in computer science always believe in computer modeling as validation?

      • Try to keep up, Poptech. I said nothing about computer science (about which I actually DO know a lot. I wasn’t a historian my whole life). Read a little cognitive science. read a little post-modern philosophy. Read Thomas Kuhn if nothing else. Then we can talk about how professional scientists (can i see a show of hands? Yeah, that’s what I thought), scientist wannabes, and skeptics-for-the-sake-of-skepticism form and challenge paradigms.

      • danallosso, get a degree in computer science and then you may begin to know how little you do now. I also think you should read a book on logical fallacies as you are prone to making them. So far your abject failures here have resulted in a lot of whining by you.

      • Regarding the little ice age, Tim. Yeah, I teach that to my undergrads in Environmental History. It was a very interesting period. Skating on the Thames, Pushing the Vikings out of Greenland and Vinland. If Viking settlement in the Americas had continued, the Columbian Exchange might have gone quite differently.

        So yes, I accept there are plenty of sources of non-anthropogenic climate change. But I’m not prepared to accept there’s no AGW just because you and your buddies are so offensive. That’s not really the way science or any other serious pursuit works. If you think it does, I guess you’ve come to the right place.

      • danallosso writes “So yes, I accept there are plenty of sources of non-anthropogenic climate change.”

        But if you accept that, then you must also accept the reality that the earth can warm all by itself without a CO2 forcing. The main belief by AGW supporters is that there are no known mechanisms to create the current warming other than CO2 and definitely nothing the models can reproduce so it must therefore be the cause. But you know thats not the case…

        Now that doesn’t say CO2 isn’t causing this warming but it does firmly put doubt on the argument that it must be causing it.

      • I haven’t found in the pro-AGW stuff I’ve read, a uniform claim that there are no other effects at work than CO2 greenhouse effect. In fact, comparing WUWT with a pro-AGW site, I found a whole lot more science over there. Discussions about complexity. And a whole lot less name-calling.

      • danallosso writes “I haven’t found in the pro-AGW stuff I’ve read, a uniform claim that there are no other effects at work than CO2 greenhouse effect.”

        No but they will be saying most of the warming was caused by CO2 if they follow the IPCC credo. Many sites such as SkS will claim that ALL of the observed warming is caused by the anthropogenic CO2.

        And then goes on to write “I found a whole lot more science over there.”

        Well I dont know what site you’re talking about but there are indeed many sites out there that focus far more on the details of the science than this one. Some of them are highly technical. This site gives more of an overview and often gives a good starting point for further research if you’re so inclined.

    • Bob

      Because Cook’s target audience was the scientifically illiterate general public (who delegate power to politicians), not the tiny subset of people supposedly trained in the scientific method.

      I sincerely believe Cook knew his “study” was crap from the git-go – he just didn’t care. His definition of success was publishing something that would grab headlines in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, he succeeded.

      • “I sincerely believe Cook knew his “study” was crap from the git-go – he just didn’t care. His definition of success was publishing something that would grab headlines in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, he succeeded.”

        From the git-go he tortured the data until he was able to publish his smashing success. Make no mistake, he has been incredibly successful with this study.

    • Yeah. Cook is big on the theory that if only the voters knew there was a scientific consensus, they’d fall right in line and behave as he wants them to.

    • What Cook did was completely pointless. Showing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that humans have played some role in observed climate change is something no one is going to disagree with – even here. It doesn’t deserve the time of day, other than to exemplify the use of propaganda in modern scientific literature.

      • Actually Cook tries to have it both ways but explicitly stated this in their paper,

        “We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).”

    • I still don’t understand why SkS keeps promoting consensus in climate science, when consensus is nothing more than groupthink

      Consensus of course in general is not same as groupthink.

      Groupthink happens when people agree on stuff since they want to follow authority or fashion. Consensus is what happens when they need to formulate something they agree on. Right?

  5. Reblogged this on dan allosso’s blog and commented:
    Here’s a post listing 97 dissents to climate change. In spite of the problems the academy has communicating with the rest of the world, I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes. The closest match is the Science and Education article, which is about the 97% claim, not the information the 97% are reported to agree on. The article concludes, “either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain.”

    It’s easy to challenge the number 97, but really what’s the point? Okay, it may be 99% or 89%. There is broad consensus over the fact that something is happening and we are making it happen. Yes, there are a few (proportionally very few) articles denying this. They need to be reviewed with the same rigor as the articles documenting change. But at its most basic level, this is an argument about science informing public policy. And in practice, we don’t wait for a unanimous decision. We evaluate the science, and then act.

    • Oh -well that explains everything then. You are just looking for clicks on your pathetic faux-science alarmoblog. Good luck with that.

      • Oh, touché! You are clearly a master at rational debate. I’m going to retreat and have a cry now. No, wait. I’m not.

      • danallosso

        You say

        Oh, touché! You are clearly a master at rational debate. I’m going to retreat and have a cry now. No, wait. I’m not.

        Oh! Does your not crying indicate that your silly posts in this thread have succeeded in getting “clicks on your pathetic faux-science alarmoblog”?

        Richard

    • We don’t have to deny something you can’t prove. Models are not proof. Peer review proves nothing. Your side made an hypothesis, but you have yet to prove it.

      Case closed!

      • No hypothesis in science is ever “proven”
        You can falsify one, but “proof” of a scientific hypothesis is never achieved.

      • CAGW is not even a hypothesis. It is a conjecture, nothing more. An opinion.

        A hypothesis is capable of making repeated, accurate predictions…

        …so much for CAGW, which can’t predict it’s way out of a wet paper bag.

      • Two things.

        AGW is a bona fide hypothesis

        Secondly, nowhere in the science is “C” added to the AGW hypothesis
        .

      • D. Sock rattles makes another bogus claim which he has imported from ? SKS? Hotmoma’s? with his claim that catastrophic global warming is not a valid term in science. When he is not peeing puddles, he peddles crap from the alarmists blogs.
        So much for this would-be scientist.

      • Sox sez:

        AGW is a bona fide hypothesis

        Aren’t assertions wonderful? Anybody can make them, no matter how wrong they are.

        And:

        …nowhere in the science is “C” added to the AGW hypothesis

        But in the alarmosphere, ‘catastrophic’ AGW is always either stated or implied.

        Why?

        Because if they admitted that AGW is a minor non-event, they wouldn’t be wasting their time arguing about it — that’s why they will never admit that AGW is a minor, 3rd-order forcing. But it is.

        There are no measurements of AGW; it is just too small to measure with current instruments. The alarmist cult is arguing about something that’s too minuscule to even measure! Pathetic, no?

        Next: AGW is not a “hypothesis”. A hypothises (or a theory — same-same, really) must be able to make repeated, accurate predictions. Like the Theory of Relativity, for example.

        But the AGW conjecture has never been able to make accurate predictions. Every prediction based on AGW/CAGW has been flat wrong.

        D. Socrates would understand this — if he understood the Scientific Method’s hierarchy. By mis-labeling AGW as a “hypothesis” he shows that he simply doesn’t understand.

      • ” … is always either stated or implied. ”

        Aren’t assertions wonderful? You can make them, no matter how wrong you are.

        The rest of your post is just more assertions ……

      • Mr Socks, I keep asking you:

        Who feeds you your misinformation? Hansen has been consistently wrong. Besides, Hansen fabricates the climate record. Some HE-RO you’ve got there.

        As for your failed attempt to stick WUWT in the eye: check out the bounce rate for all your alarmist blogs, unhappy child. They all suck compared with WUWT.

        And you don’t understand Alexa either.

        Come to think about it, you don’t really understand much of anything. Do you? If WUWT is so bad, why don’t you go see your like-minded pals at hotwhopper or Tamino…

        …oh, right. Tamino has folded. And realclimate is ready to fold.

        What were you saying about WUWT?

      • We see in sock rat the confirmation of the saying “global warming is an intelligence test” and sock rat flunks.

        Sock rat, do you really think that SKS is going to give you anything but halitosis of the intellect?

      • David, please stop posting your ignorance of all things Internet related.

        Alexa “stats” only represent people stupid enough to install the Alexa Toolbar.

        It has no bearing on actual web traffic and can be manipulated at will. I can setup Alexa traffic spam servers anytime I want.

        [Reply: In the last year WUWT traffic has risen from around 6,000 constant, to around 8,000 (slightly less on weekends). That is a one-third increase, which does not jive with Alexa. ~mod.]

      • Socks sez:

        Here is a good dose of reality for you dbstealey

        An interesting pattern has emerged: whenever socrates is wrong [very often] and he is corrected [also very often], he vanishes — and then he reappears, apparently oblivious to the fact that his point has been refuted.

        Socks has been right on occasion. But he is wrong far more often than anyone on this thread, and really, he is wrong about more things, more often in general, than just about anyone else on any thread. But he persists. Being wrong doesn’t seem to matter to him.

        Socks has been given links showing that Alexa cannot be relied upon any more than John Cook’s SkepticalScience [which has it’s own category on the sidebar: Unreliable]. But even though Alexa is unreliable, note that it shows the Bounce Rate at only 46% — much lower than any alarmist blog [lower is better], and Global Rank up by 7,701 [up from 17,317]. Those statistics are apparently invisible to Socks.

        None of that matters to him. Nor does it matter that realclimate is on it’s last legs, Tamino is defunct, and no alarmist blog comes anywhere near WUWT in reader stats. No, Socks is so desperate to salvage any bit of good [to him] news that he is reveling in what is simply a temporary fluctuation.

        I’ve commented here since the beginning, when 3 – 4 comments were a lot. I’ve seen WUWT grow from zero hits, to more than 214 million unique views, and reader comments from less than a hundred, to well over 100 million. But Socks thinks that is a problem. Doesn’t he understand that any of his thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs would kill for WUWT’s ‘problems’?

        So D.Socrates is wrong about everything. Some folks are like that. Teaching socrates scientific facts is like trying to convert a Jehovah’s Witness to Catholicism. It’s like trying to teach a dog trigonometry.

        I like Socks, though. He gives us the opportunity to present the skeptics’ argument to lurking readers, who can then make up their own minds. And I notice that Socks doesn’t have any following to speak of. Maybe because no one buys his anti-science?

        Keep at it, Soxie me boi! We need a foil like you. It helps sharpen our arguments. I just wish the competition was a little stronger, for my own sake.

      • Mr Socks, I keep asking you: Who feeds you your misinformation?

        The graph is straight off of Skeptical Science. He is too much of a coward to link to it knowing it will be rightly ridiculed as the toilet paper it is. Alarmists are too naive to know that everything off that website has long been debunked but since Cook censors all dissenting comments they are all mislead like mindless drones.

      • David Socrates shows a graph of a more accurate prediction than that originally made.

        The thing is that SkS has decided that it should be allowed to move the start temperature down based on the averages as they appeared after the prediction was made. Clearly Hansen started too high because he was using the averages of the day. But what does that mean? It means that warming after the prediction was made was less than he’d predicted and by allowing the lower start, the prediction seems better but its smoke and mirrors!

      • Poptech
        ..
        “represent people stupid enough to install the Alexa Toolbar.”

        So you’ve never heard of tracking cookies…..
        ..
        Tell you what, install the Ghostery plug in on your browser and see how many trackers you are subject too.

      • So you’ve never heard of tracking cookies…..
        ..
        Tell you what, install the Ghostery plug in on your browser and see how many trackers you are subject too.

        WTF are you talking about? Are you new to the Internet or do you not comprehend what I am telling you? Please stop spreading your ignorance on how Alexa works.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20140402163843/http://www.alexa.com/company/technology

        “Alexa employs web usage information, which tells us what’s being seen on the web by real people. This information comes from our community of Alexa Toolbar users. Each member of the community, in addition to getting a useful tool, is giving back. Simply by using the Toolbar, each member contributes valuable information about the web, how it is used, and what is important and what isn’t. This information is returned to the community with improved Related Links, Traffic Ranks, and more.”

      • Your claim of it being a “lie” is your opinion.

        You have focused on Cook et al 20013 but…

        ..

        You haven’t addressed Oreskes 2004
        You haven’t addressed Doran 2099
        And you haven’t addressed Anderegg 2010

      • Actually the point is that even if the number isn’t 97%, the majority of climate scientists support the idea of human-induced climate change and have published data that makes sense. You can object to Cook and his study, and the way he publicized it, and the way policy-makers have used it — and I might even agree. But what I don’t agree with is that discrediting that study has anything to do with either a.) the fact that most climate scientists (not just people with PhDs in mechanical engineering or physics) agree, and b.) the separate and much more important fact that it’s true.

      • It’s a lie, no matter what your baseless assertions are. “97%” has been shown to be a lie so many times over, including the article above this thread, that only a clueless lemming would still believe it.

        danallosso sez:

        …the majority of climate scientists support the idea of human-induced climate change

        See what I mean about baseless assertions? There’s one ^right there^. NAME that “majority” of scientists. You can’t. Isn’t that a fact?

        I have produced the individual names of thirty two thousand scientists who dispute your alarmist carp. But you have yet to produce ONE name, and unless you can produce more than 32 thousand names, you’re lying just like the rest of them.

        That goes for both of you.

      • Your pathetic OISM petition with “…thirty two thousand scientists…” has been debunked more often than Cook’s paper.

      • As has Hawkeye Pierce

        Why would you fabricate something so easily proven to be false?

        And:

        Your pathetic OISM petition…

        No, chump, it is you who are pathetic. I backed up my statement with verifiable facts, including tens of thousands of names, and then I challenged you to name your side. You failed.

        As usual, you have nothing but impotent bluster.

      • David, please stop spreading misinformation about the petition,

        http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

        5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

        Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

        In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

      • The current OISM petition is an outgrowth of the Oregon Petition of the late 1990″s
        The same person that created the Oregon Petition is now running the OISM.
        No difference, but it is plagued by the same problems as it has had in the past.
        ..
        The problem with the OISM petition is that you cannot verify it.
        ..
        The hallmark of any scientific endeavor is reproducibility.

        The OISM not only fails in that, it carries the baggage of the Oregon Petition.
        ..
        Hopefully, Santa Claus is not in the current crop of “32,000” signatories

      • David Socrates December 19, 2014 at 2:36 pm
        Your claim of it being a “lie” is your opinion.

        You have focused on Cook et al 20013 but…

        ..

        You haven’t addressed Oreskes 2004
        You haven’t addressed Doran 2099
        And you haven’t addressed Anderegg 2010
        ——

        They’re all the same lie — using a subset of some scientific survey to proclaim something that has not been remotely proven.

        Science isn’t settled by surveys. If they could prove their assertions using Science and the Scientific Method we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

        They can’t, you can’t.

      • D. Socrates says:

        “Read this”

        Sorry, pal, I don’t have time for your thinly-trafficked pseudo-science blogs. WUWT is the multi-year winner of the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. This site has regular articles by climatologists, physicists, geologists, and many other hard science authors, while your boy John Cook is a cartoonist and propagandist who likes to go around in neo-Nazi uniforms. I get plenty of good science here, I don’t need your politics.

        You say:

        The same person that created the Oregon Petition is now running the OISM.

        Yes, that would be Dr. Frederick Seitz, Past President of the National Academy of Sciences, and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.

        And you are …? Really, who are you, but a fake screen name?

        The more you post, the more you appear the fool. But keep it up. Please. Other readers can decide for themselves who is credible, and who isn’t. Really, you make it too easy for us.

        So once again: I have posted the names of tens of thousands of real American scientists who co-signed the OISM statement saying that human-emitted CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

        But all you have done in response is to display your impotent bluster. With lemmings like you and danny emitting your Chicken Little scares, it’s no wonder the public is ridiculing your runaway global warming nonsense. You probably don’t even realize that you lost the CAGW debate a long time ago.

        Keep it up! We want the public to see the contrast.

      • David are you new to this debate?

        You haven’t addressed Oreskes 2004

        http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/d662k4lv7wh552t1/
        http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/d588k23724201502/

        You haven’t addressed Doran 2099

        The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 cherry picked “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey.

        And you haven’t addressed Anderegg 2010

        http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/E151.full
        http://www.pnas.org/content/107/47/E176.full
        http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.full

        http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/lawrence-solomon-google-scholar-at-the-academy/

      • Actually the point is that even if the number isn’t 97%, the majority of climate scientists support the idea of human-induced climate change and have published data that makes sense.

        danallosso, you have two problems.

        1. You have failed to provide an objective criteria for determining a “climate scientist”.
        2. You have failed to show were all of the worlds “climate scientists” have been polled as to their position on climate change.

        a.) the fact that most climate scientists (not just people with PhDs in mechanical engineering or physics) agree

        LMAO, another brainwashed drone who thinks all climate scientists have Ph.Ds in climatology.

        So you do not think James Hansen Ph.D. in Physics is a climate scientist?

        Oh you poor, poor suckers.

      • You haven’t addressed Oreskes 2004
        You haven’t addressed Doran 2099
        And you haven’t addressed Anderegg 2010

        All “97% Consensus” Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

        After showing how 97 articles thoroughly refuted the most prominent “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013), consensus proponents inevitably moved the goal posts and fell back on other “97% consensus” studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) (which is really a 100% consensus study). However, these have all been refuted in the scholarly literature and the following are the peer-reviewed refutations of them.

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

    • Here’s a post listing 97 dissents to climate change. […] I think it’s significant that you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes.

      Why did you make a post demonstrating multiple strawman logical fallacies?

      • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        But seriously, as I’ve already stipulated, I was responding less to the criticism of the Cook article than to the implication that because the article was flawed there is no broad understanding of climate change based on well-executed observation and reasoning, I don’t think flaws in the Cook article prove the latter. Also, I don’t think an argument you disagree with is automatically a straw man, that’s not how it works.

      • danalloso,

        Here is how it works:

        Everything in science is measurable. Science is nothing without measurements, but there are no verifiable measurements quantifying AGW. None at all.

        Doesn’t that bother you, even a little? Or is “climate change” your religion?

        Skeptics are simply saying: show us. If human emissions are causing global warming as claimed, then produce a measurement. The fact that there are no such measurements to be found, after more than thirty years of searching, indicates that either AGW doesn’t exist, or that it is simply too minuscule to measure (my own view).

        If AGW is so small, there is no problem. Is there?

        So, what do you think? Is there a problem? If so, produce a measurement quantifying the problem. Or concede that you have no such measurement.

      • Dbstealey

        AGW is the best explanation for the 0.8 degree C rise in the past 150 years. You don’t need a “measurement” of something for it to exist is science. No one has measured a “quark” but they hypothetically exist inside the nucleus of an atom.

        Until a better explanation comes along, AGW is currently the frontrunner.

      • D Socrates:
        It is agreed amongst the modelers and AGW crowd that anthropogenic CO2 levels were not sufficient to affect climate before 1950. You come here and wring your hands and pee your puddle over what is not attributed to AGW by any except the most ignorant of the alarmists, such as those who frequent SKS, hotmoma’s, etc. We see this kind of junk science all the time, and it only fools your type.

      • Confirming his ignorance of science, D. Socrates says:

        AGW is the best explanation for the 0.8 degree C rise in the past 150 years

        Wrong. As always, wrong. Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is almost always correct. Natural climate variability fully explains the *minuscule* 0.7ºC fluctuation in global T over the past century and a half. That tiny fluctuation in T is far less than almost any preceding time period. The climate has been unusually stable, despite CO2 rising from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000. Eek… not.

        Alarmists preposterously demand a ZERO change in T, according to their pseudo-science. But zero fluctuations are not even possible in a chaotic system.

        Natural variability provides a complete explanation of the current global climate, without the need for an extraneous variable like the alarmist cult’s magic trace gas.

        Keep ’em coming, socrates, this is easier than Whack-A-Mole.

      • D. Socrates,

        I had to larf at Shaun Lovejoy’s link. If anything, that totally supports Occam’s Razor. Among other things, it says:

        …current global warming…quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes…

        In other words, their ‘evidence’ comes from computer climate models. When they use real world observations, they are contradicted by Planet Earth. They say:

        Although the rejection of natural variability would not “prove” anthropogenic causation &etc.

        So they are desperate to show that human effects caused the tiny 0.7º fluctuation, and their cherry-picking relies on computer models. But we know this paper is complete carp for one very simple reason: the real world contradicts it.

        Can’t you alarmist folks ever think for yourselves?? Your witch doctors use their mumbo-jumbo on you, and you Believe. Because you are desperate to believe.

        Think for yourself, if you can: we are in one of the most benign periods ever recorded. Extreme WX events are steadily trending downward. Global T is as flat as anything in the entire geologic record. Exatly none of the alarming predictions have happened; they were all wrong.

        Before you trot out alarmist propaganda like that… think. At least, try.

      • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        Danallosso this is incorrect,

        Strawman “a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted. Type of: specious argument, an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious”

        http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/strawman

        This post is not “97 dissents to climate change” but rather 97 articles refuting the 97% consensus, and it is incoherent to request a peer-reviewed academic article “denying human-caused climate change”. However there are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against AGW, such as: Legates and Davis (1997), Raschke (2001), Singer (2002), Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), Karlen (2008), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), Kramm and Dlugi (2011), Zhao (2011), Beenstock et al. (2012) and more.

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      • Mr Sox says:

        …you really don’t have a single peer-reviewed academic article here denying human-caused climate changes.

        As always, the alarmist clique tries to put skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative.

        Earth to Socks: YOU have the onus, not scientific skeptics. Skeptics have nothing to prove. You are promoting a conjecture: that human emissions cause measureable global warming.

        Your problem is that you don’t have a single validated measurement to support your conjecture.

        Come back when you do.

    • Hello dana.

      You seem not to understand, or at least pretend not to………….this blog post is not about the validity of the certainty of human-caused climate change…which will be the 95% certanty propagated and upholded in the IPCC AR5….but is actually about the problems with the Cook’s 97% consensus paper.

      As you say it does not really matter if it been 97% or 88% or 99% or whatever %…… as simply, contrary to what you imply, actually it has not and holds not any merit or relevance in any scientific assessment or conclusions about the AGW, therefor it will not hold any much water with anyone outside the hyper AGW movement.
      Is generally intended to keep the mood of the AGW flok hyped enough under any circumstances.
      That is not the main problem actually as very clearly shown in this article and in the 97% of the other papers referred in this article. :-)
      The main problem is the fraud and deception employed through the methodology followed by Cook.

      So if the consensus it is as obvious as you make it seem why the need of such a paper or study with so much pomposity even with more noise and pomposity than the very 95% certanty of AGW as propagated by IPCC…and why the need to resolve to malpractice, fraud and deception by Cook!
      These are not allegation, have been proven and are facts, regardless if there is no retraction there yet, which makes the case even more ridiculous as far as the worthiness of peer-review concerned.

      Such malpractices and the easy of their promotion to peer-review certification standart do lead to the peer-review ending up to be considered no better than a pal-review or bandwagon-review.
      That is the real damage and what concernes most that do and have already complained and rejected Cook’s paper and who do consider it a fraud and a malpractice.

      cheers

      • Whiten, maybe you’re right. As I’ve already mentioned, my interest is in the issue of climate change. Actually my interest is environmental externalities, but climate change, to whatever degree it’s happening and we can affect it, is an important subset. But it seems to me that the headline, many of the articles in the list, and many of the posts in this comment thread are about more than just the problems with the Cook paper. And I’ve gotta say that some of the advocates on this thread are among the least civil I’ve run across in years. It’s like the early days of the internet in here (Not speaking of you of course). So my responses to other comments may have gone off the strict topic of the Cook paper — but then so did the comments I was responding to.

      • And I’ve gotta say that some of the advocates on this thread are among the least civil I’ve run across in years. It’s like the early days of the internet in here (Not speaking of you of course).

        You are either incredibly naive or an outright hypocrite. The comments here are tame compared to the vile spewed by your fellow alarmists when trying to have any sort of discussion on this issue at liberal-leaning or pro-AGW sites.

      • So Poptech, your argument is it’s okay for you to be a jerk because there are bigger jerks somewhere else?

        This whole thread is a great demonstration of why academics rarely venture across the line and try to communicate with regular people. Which I think is a shame — we need more communication cross that line. You may be right, it may be just as bad on the pro-AGW (funny how you get so worked up when they call you deniers, but you persist in calling them alarmists and warmunists) sites. If so, more’s the pity. In that case, neither side is contributing to progress.

      • My argument is I don’t care because you are not intellectually honest. Your idiotic blog post was a big strawman argument of what this discussion was about. FYI, academics comment here all the time. “Contributing to progress”, progress is what? Progress in exponentially increasing the cost of energy? Progress in lowering the living standards for the poor? Please, spare me your progress.

    • Hi Danallosso, your post is essentially the same as my take on the debate. I am however an opponent of the reductionist theory that someone is a believer or a sceptic. ( I don’t use the word ‘denier’ because I understand it is objectionable in the same way as calling a a child with cerebral palsy “spastic”) Because of my background in mental health I aware that no one has exactly the same views on such a complex subject as climate change, though they may tend towards one side or another. That is what really irritated me about this paper, the black and white thinking behind it and the pigeon holing of a wide range of opinions and concepts. By the way it’s sad to see you get a lot of stick because your posts are not in agreement with our rather more vocal posters.

      • Thanks, Gareth. I’m also not in favor of a reductionist approach. I’d be happy to discuss how we deal with uncertainty and disagreement over very important issues like this one. The cost of acting vs. failing to act, etc. Maybe there will be other posts in the future that take up these lines of thought. I’ll stay tuned.

        Regarding the ad hominen aspect, it seems to be coming primarily from one or two people, who judging from other comments seem to be well-known for this type of behavior. I’m just going to ignore them going forward.

      • Looso has come to drum up traffic for his alarmist propaganda blog, Gareth Phillips. So why are you here instead of there?
        If you are looking for junk science, Looso is your man. Get thee hence

      • Really, it’s been a while since anyone has resorted to making fun of my name. I think it was middle school, last time it happened. Of course, if you’ve lost the argument, there’s nothing left but name-calling. It’s too bad the site moderators support this — doesn’t do much to enhance the site’s credibility.

      • My purpose is to expose your junk science motives, Looso. I wish to make clear that your purpose in peddling your junk science on this blog is self promotion.I have seen your type many times before and I find you contemptible.

      • And so, less than 36 hours after the post, all that seems to be left are the cranks. Sweet Old Bob, Peter Miller, richardscourtney, dustily, and mpainter — none of whom have been able to carry on a rational discussion without resorting to insults — seem to have driven all the reasonable people from the field. This is they type of race to the bottom you get when you encourage incivility. Nice job, WUWT. You’ve really done your side of the debate a service.

      • You’re just digging yourself a deeper hole, mpainter. I reblogged this post , which is why my comments were basically repeated twice. This is what happens when you reblog on WordPress. You are one of the most ignorant and obnoxious people I’ve run across in years. You literally have nothing to add to this discussion but raving insults. You’re doing your compatriots here a huge disservice, by helping validate the claim made by some of your opponents that climate skeptics are irrational nut jobs. I don’t think that’s the case — some of the posts here have been reasonable and temperate. But when so much of the space on the thread is taken by haters like yourself, it does make outsiders wonder whether there’s any point checking WUWT out.

      • Looso
        Do not flatter yourself as someone worthy of a scientific discussion.
        You are pollution, not science
        Go back to your alarmist blogs where you belong. Your self promotion is vile.

  6. Even the Climate science layman like myself and I’m sure most dedicated followers of WUWT can easily see there is no unified theory of the climate. There are so many variables, so many dynamic processes going on in the natural environment before even folding in the anthropogenic variables that make it ludicrous to claim any “certainty” of this science. Thanks for all the hard work you do here Anthony and thanks also to the dedicated team of coders and contributors.

    Happy holidays everyone, long live science and the scientific method!

    • Doug

      Well said; I couldn’t agree more.

      As a layman, you might enjoy Khun’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. It presents historical background & philosophical implications for development and use of the scientific method.

      Given the impact of this intellectual gem (i.e. scientific method), it’s appalling to see it so casually cast aside. Viewed thru Khun’s lense, the CAGW debate literally looks like something out of the dark ages.

  7. We should be careful about claiming that ‘there is a consensus’ that the ‘97% consensus article’ has been debunked. The uncovering of truth does not require a consensus. Action upon the implications of any finding is where consensus is needed.

    The misuse of the idea of a ‘climate consensus’ is the coercion that often accompanies the statement: “You should agree with us because everyone else does.” Which is followed by, “If you don’t agree with us there will be bad consequences for you.” That is, based on plots uncovered in the Climategate emails, a demand with a threat of economic harm or harm to ones career, often involving a conspiracy with others.

    It only takes one well researched and written article to completely debunk another article. That others pile confirmation upon it and communicate the same conclusion to other audiences adds credibility.

    • Crispin in Waterloo,

      We should be careful about claiming that ‘there is a consensus’ that the ‘97% consensus article’ has been debunked. The uncovering of truth does not require a consensus. Action upon the implications of any finding is where consensus is needed.

      That’s quite well stated, I wish I hadn’t missed it earlier. There is a big difference between convergence of the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of the researchers interpretations of it. For any non-trivial field of study, there should always be a robust debate going on at the leading edge of it.

    • We should be careful about claiming that ‘there is a consensus’ that the ‘97% consensus article’ has been debunked.

      Strawman argument, no such claim was made.

  8. The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals …

    … so one would expect the refutations to be thoroughly rejected at WUWT.

    [filed under: having their cake and eating it too]

    • Surely it would depend on the content of the papers?
      We Sceptics actually read the science instead of relying on faith.
      That’s what makes us Sceptics.

      • Brandon was apparently unwilling to defend the “97%” fallacy, so resorted to yet another logical fallacy, by firing a broadside ad hominem attack at WUWT and the readership.
        Maybe someday he will realize the extent to which he repeatedly soils himself in public.

      • Alan

        Unfortunately, Brandon looks like a member in good standing of the group of people to whom public displays of “lack of deep thinking” and [trimmed] one’s pants are badges of honor.

        You need to stand upwind of these folks.

      • M Courtney,

        There’s no way to know of course, but I think we all read the science, just come to different conclusions about it.

      • Alan Robertson,

        You’re darn right I’m unwilling to defend the 97% meme, it’s pure PR. Snarking about my perception that “pal review” is a Bad Thing, except when it isn’t, is pointing out a logical inconsistency, not an ad hominem. Try having thicker skin because you and your fellows spare neither snark nor personal insult. Why you think you’re somehow immune to the public soiling that incurs is frankly beyond my ability to comprehend. But then we all know that I’m an idiot.

      • Chip Javert,

        Try “defecating one’s pants” next time; it’s less likely to be censored and the detached clinical nature of the term will actually express more disdain to me than the more common and vulgar one.

      • mpainter,

        I fully admit that taking potshots at what I consider silly frivolous arguments is enjoyable. Scientists are human, even the would be ones.

  9. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure the “97% Census” lie has been told more than enough times now to make it true.

  10. Thank you Anthony. Your compendium was well timed for me since I am currently arguing with a particularly recalcitrant believer about that very “consensus”. As usual such people require meticulous spoon feeding and now you have provided the fodder to give him real belly full. Not that I expect it to change his mind. That is probably impossible since it is an article of faith. If that were possible any rational person would have already figured out the whole thing was a fraud. And any rational person would have also seen from the very beginning that it was a political document and not a scientific one and thus if they were seeking the truth would have been skeptical of it until it was proven legitimate.

    • I found WUWT 6-7 years ago while trying to refute arguments from a friend that all the ice in the arctic had melted. Since then, he remains a faithful CAGW alarmist and no mountain of evidence can ever be enough to convince him otherwise. Good luck with your believer, I hope they are more open minded then my friend. BTW, he is also in favor of a communist world government, so there is the mindset I deal with.

    • Rah, don’t be deterred as even though you are unlikely to convince most Alarmists from their religious ideology you will be able to convince anyone intellectually honest who overhears or reads the conversation.

  11. The most significant climate consensus 97% that really exists is in the 2014 paper “Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming” by Meehl et al.

    Even with hindcasting, 253 out of 262 climate model projections are wrong through 2014 which equals 97% (0.965648) incorrect. Whoopee, 3% were right. But every year the pause continues, the number goes down.

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/climate-models-simulate-global-warming-pause.html

    • But a bit of a sting in the tail of the report, according to the link supplied above:

      “There are indications from some of the most recent model simulations that the hiatus could end in the next few years,” Meehl added, “though we need to better quantify the reliability of the forecasts produced with this new technique.”

  12. Reblogged this on Scratch Living and commented:
    People will sell their intellectual integrity for grants and paychecks. Corrupt intellect smells like dog poop stuck on your shoe. It only has to be a little bit a poo stuck to the bottom of your shoe to stink up everything you walk on.

  13. It has always seemed to me that getting 97% of a group to agree to anything is very difficult, if not impossible in the case of a complicated subject like ‘climate change’.

    If Cook had any sense he would have made his fabricated number believable, like, say, 57%, or 63%, etc. The claim of ‘97%’ has knowledgeable people rolling their eyes. Only True Believers would accept something that preposterous.

    • dbstealey, perhaps you’ve just uncovered the reason that the fabricated surface temperature record so wildly disagrees with the equally useless GCM outputs.

    • dbstealey: you are so right. 97% is almost as big a margin as the last North Korean election.

  14. It doesn’t really matter you know. None of the climate change extremists will be deterred from the 97% consensus amount.

  15. I am always skeptical when I see studies quoted in the media. 1. Who funded it? 2. Who conducted it? 3. How was it conducted? 4. Has it been independently verified by parties not funded by the same source?There is far too much plain sloppy research going on!

    • science bought and paid for. which is healthier? butter or margarine? how many millions of $ have been made as a result of these studies? how many heart attacks and deaths the result?

      and now we have studies that say industrialization is changing the climate, we need to stop. especially the less developed countries, they need to stop before we run out of natural resources. the fear side of the equation.

      only the less developed nations have seen through the issue. they are not going to stop developing. however, they are going to use the studies bought and paid for to seek damages from the developed nations. the greed side of the equation.

      all these studies that were supposed to save the world. they will be instead create great harm. fear and greed and the law of unintended consequences in action.

      • the law of unintended consequences. for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. we know this to be true of physics, but we ignore it in our day to day lives. yet our world is governed by the laws of physics. good and bad are the flip sides of the same coin.

  16. Wonderful work PopTech!

    You have often given me reasons for increasing my optimism about the effectiveness of the intellectual discourse critical of the observationally failed theory of significant climate change by CO2 from fossil fuel use. Thank you.

    Happy Holiday season to you.

    John

  17. If this article is implying that there is no consensus, then perhaps it is time to remind some that pretty much every nationally representative scientific body on the planet supports the point being made, that mans increased CO2 production is causing warming that is a concern to future generations. I for one take their view a whole lot more seriously than some out of date(Oregon) petition signed by Hawkeye Pierce and the Spice Girls.

    • Sorry, but the stated position of a “scientific” body on climate is meaningless, since they are simply the boilerplate positions of those in positions of power. They are essentially political statements which the members have no say about. The reason is simple: government funding.
      Your belief in “the consensus” is as idiotic as your alarmist view that man’s CO2 is “causing warming that is a concern to future generations”. The only thing that should be of concern to future generations is what the Climatist industry is doing to the cost and availability of energy planet-wide, which hurts people, particularly poorer people. It is an abomination.

    • Yes, there is still a majority of scientists who follow the currently dominant “herd instinct” and the well filled research funds in the very profitable field of climate alarmism. That’s only human. Every ruling ideology has lots of opportunistic followers. It’s so much easier and more career-enhancing to follow the current fashions than to think and work as an independent mind against the mainstream…

      I guess the real majority percentage would be about 60 – 70 % if the Cook et al study would have been performed by meaningful questions and without bias.

      But the real percentage is not the important point. The crucial question is whether a majority opinion is automatically right. I think every open-minded person with some knowledge of scientific and general history will know the answer to that…

  18. After writing an article in my economics newsletter in favor of more CO2 in the air, and favoring global warming over global cooling (not that we have a choice), I am certainly a “denier” by Warmunist standards, yet it seems even my views fit into the 97% “club” based on the questions in the survey as I interpreted them!

    It appears the 97% were EVERYONE who believed humans had ANY effect on the climate, no matter how SMALL.
    .
    I’m suspicious of the 3%, who must be certain nothing humans have ever done has had even the slightest effect on the climate. Maybe even too small an effect to measure. That seems unlikely.
    .
    Almost everyone who doubts a climate catastrophe caused by manmade CO2 is coming … could still be included in the 97%, which has been grossly misinterpreted to mean 97% believe in the climate astrology predictions of the climate computer games.

    For me, the suspected human influence on the climate was the dark soot continuously deposited on Arctic ice and snow, mainly from burning coal and wood in the Northern Hemisphere (that’s my best guess for why so much of the global warming is due to “local warming” in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, and so little warming has been measured in the southern half of the Southern Hemisphere … but there could be other explanations better than mine — I’m just speculating)
    .

  19. But has there been an official retraction from the publisher or are they fully willing to bastardize science for the cause?

    • Unlikely there will be, as they were unwillingly to allow a critical comment from highly distinguished scientists like Dr. Tol to be published in their own journal. Instead they are content on misleading the public with their propaganda.

  20. Weblogs and media coverage do not count, sorry. Many of these articles are from this site itself. And many were written by individual people, many by the same two or three people. The only three significal articles listed here are the ones from journals at the top. Two of them were written by an economist (note nit a scientist) who actually agrees with apgw theories, just not the predicted results, which indeed do vary. He also promotes a carbon tax.
    The third is an more an analysis of consensus itself. It does not show or argue that there is no consensus on apgw, but that there is not consensus on its impacts, which anyone who Actually follows the actual science and not the spin enjoyed so regularly on this site already knows.
    Conclusion? Since nothing here actually debunks the 97% consensus on the existence of apgw, this website probably willfully misleading people to believe the myth that apgw is a fraud.

    • Sorry Jeb, but you are not the arbiter of what “counts”. Only 15 of the articles are from this site. Since when did “articles written by individual people” become an argument to dismiss something?

      You do realize that Cook and some of his other co-authors were not scientists either? Almost none of the those who did the abstract ratings were either.

      Dr. Tol however, is much more than simply an “economist” but a professor on the economics of climate change, a lead author of the IPCC and did his thesis on the greenhouse effect,

      Richard S. J. Tol, M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect“), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001, 2013); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007, 2013); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-2011); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)

      We are all well aware of Dr. Tol’s position on climate change which is not something you or your fellow alarmists support.

      Since nothing here actually debunks the 97% consensus on the existence of apgw, this website probably willfully misleading people to believe the myth that apgw is a fraud.

      It is makes no sense for anything here to debunk your strawman arguments instead of what they are actually addressing.

    • So only weblogs like SkepticalScience and RealClimate etc and media such as the BBC, ABC/SBS and CBS count because they support the 97% concensus?

    • Beetle bug,
      Climatologists have re-computed the CS for our planet. It turns out that it is about 0.6°K for a doubling of CO2.
      You can go home now and cook some bar-be-que with a clear conscience.

    • Mr. beetle,

      Did you just begin to read about the global warming issue? You really do sound like a noobie. What is “apgw”? And “apgw theories”? Did you just make those up?

      I suggest that you try to get up to speed by reading the WUWT archives for a couple months, before dipping your toe in the water here. You will have a much better chance of sounding knowledgeable.

  21. beetle says:

    Weblogs and media coverage do not count, sorry.

    Look up: ‘psychological projection’. Your crowd constantly uses appeals to authority and ‘consensus’ arguments. In science, both are logical fallacies.

    And if you actually believe that “nothing here actually debunks the 97% consensus”, you are a hopeless True Believer. Because when it comes to debunked nonsense, your “97%” is right at the top of the list.

    see, there is no ‘greenhouse warming signal’ and there are no measurements of AGW. Anything in science can be measured, so long as it is not so minuscule that it’s below the background noise level. If you believe otherwise, then post a verifiable, empirical, testable measurement, specifically quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming.

    Run along now back to whatever thinly-trafficked alarmist blog you get your misinformation from. You need some new talking points. I’ll wait here…

      • No one can , as you well know . The best physical image of an electron is that of a wave packet , so the concept of a finite diameter is meaningless.
        So since one cannot measure what does not exist , and you are questioning whether it is possible to measure the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to global warming, are you suggesting that AGW does not exist?

      • I guess socrates is right. We can’t measure stupidity either, so it’s hard to get a handle on why alarmists continue their losing debate.

        But for a rational answer: you can measure temperature. What fraction of the [tiny] temperature rise over the past century is due to AGW?

        Without an answer, we’re arguing about the cat hiding under the bed — but when we look… there is no cat.

        The man-made global warming scare is a giant head fake, nothing more.

    • You are right to question beetle’s assertions .
      There are frequent postings on this site , and no doubt on others , to the effect that it is the media that is the key to the general attitude to AGW .
      It is through the media that the general public is informed , or misinformed , about climate science .
      The majority of legislators in Washington, Brussels and London do not have the background or inclination to read the scientific literature , but rely on the media and advisors, who are invariably motivated by gain or ideology.
      The media is the mortar that holds the political structure of AGW together and there seems to be cracks appearing . It is foolish, if you are a committed AGW advocate , to dismiss the media as being a trivial element,

  22. Ah yes, the 97% consensus. Derived by formulating a question AFTER the papers were written to see how many of them fit the answer. No opportunity there for cherry picking….

    Which is the ultimate problem with any survey, even well intentioned ones. For example, if you were to ask 100 physicists:

    1. Does extra CO2 in the atmosphere cause some amount of warming?

    2. Does human activity cause extra CO2 inthe atmosphere?

    I doubt that you would get anything less than 100% agreement to both. Now ask one more question:

    3. Does the amount of extra CO2 generated by humans cause an amount of warming that should be considered imminently catastrophic?

    I doubt you would get anything even approaching consensus on the 3rd question, and the most common answer may well be “I don’t know”. But consensus? Unlikely.

    We’ll now proceed with an informal survey where people express their opinions of my three questions, their validity, and demonstrate the impossibility of arriving at a consensus just on that. 3… 2… 1…

    • Good points, David. If we expanded question 3 a bit and explored the range of possible scenarios between no effect and imminent catastrophe, and then talked about the costs of action and inaction, then we’d be getting somewhere. One of the big frustrations felt by some climate activists is that conversation is (many believe) being deflected and blocked by these arguments over things that don’t move us forward, such as how many “for” or “against” scientists can be fit on the head of a pin.

  23. Thanks!! Great ammo in the ever-lasting war against the zealots who still believe in the 97% dogma.

    By now, every alarmist who has even a slight ability for critical thinking should be aware of the absurdity of the 97% myth. But all the time it is being mindlessly repeated. The media also betray their duty to give correct and balanced information.

  24. Ironically the early dead give away that the study was BS , was the very thing that Cook is most proud about. That he matched exactly the 97% claim from an early study , given the odds against this taking into account the various factors, shows that is what he set out to do in the first place . He was just to dum to work out he could have still got a high number but one that would not have made people suspicions .

    But he really , really wanted to match the 97 and in true climate ‘science’ fashion , it was facts be dammed .

    That the 97% in both studies fails on a basic mathematical level, but is still regarded has unquestionable truth , shows how much this area is dogma rather than fact driven.

  25. It doesn’t matter. These people know they lied but it’s all in the interest of the cause. They created a meme. So effective that when Obama was here in Queensland, talking to children, he ignorantly referred to the ‘research’ that had been carried out there.

    No quarter asked, and none given..

  26. Using the CAGW proponents MO:

    what we have here is that 100% of the articles refute the 97% contrived consensus.

    Or, even better:

    100% of Climate Scientists refute the “97% consensus”.

    • Yes, we skeptics are allowed to cherry pick but scientists are not. Do you realize that it needs only one refutation to invalidate a claim? Essentially we don’t have to list more than one let alone more than what are parroted by the supporters of the claim but friendly people that we are we do it to gain some reputation in the view of not-understanding non-scientists among the readers.

  27. And for Cook’s and others studies that say that CO2 is the cause or main cause of AGW, I did lose my adjunct position. Academia is determined to indoctrinate college students. If enough believe…then it is so. Sort of reminds me of the Continental Drift Theory in the 60’s. My geomorphology teacher said that he could lose his job if he taught it (and he did a few years later). But he taught it to us anyways. Good thing…Plate Tectonics soon was the prominent theory.

    • I’m not so sure. Less than a decade ago I undertook a degree in philosophy of science. Instead of undergoing RPL, I took a course in geology, much of which dealt with climate. The coursebook I was required to use is still in use; I lent it to one of my son’s friends this year. It’s The Changing Earth: Exploring Geology and Evolution, James S. Monroe & Reed Wicander. It has but one passing reference to some believing that CO2 plays a major role in climate. I note that TR Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates contains no references at all. Admittedly it’s dated, but it’s usual for such important pedagogical texts to be updated. Example: Resnick and Halliday’s Fundamentals of Physics that I had in 1969 is still regularly updated.

      So far, no warmunist has been able to explain the complete lack of tertiary level teaching matter supporting CAGW, or refer me to a relevant text. CAGW is not AFAICT part of the Received View for those studying climate at the university level.

  28. dbstealey

    December 20, 2014 at 10:29 am

    I’d pay somebody a hundred bucks to demonstrate that adding a quantity of CO2 to a volume of air of known temperature will produce a measurable increase of temperature of the air sample.

  29. A more credible “97% consensus” comes from the latest IPCC report when it says …

    “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (…) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ….” [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]

    111 of 114 is 97.368%.

  30. actually ONE article (two are rejoinders) that could be considered scientific and lacks any rebuttle/argument that typically occurs in the peer review process.

    The rest if I’m not correct are highly reputable *cough* news articles and blogs. Way to go to convincingly win THAT argument!

    • Dave, this is completely incorrect there are 97 articles. “Articles” are not something that simply appears in a journal. I have no idea what you mean “could be considered scientific”, if the three journal articles cannot be considered scientific than neither can any of the “97% consensus” papers. All three journal articles are rebuttals/arguments following standard peer-review protocols.

      If you do not believe news articles and blogs have valid points then I suggest you stop reading them.

      There are actually 10 journal articles refuting the “97% consensus”,

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

Comments are closed.