The vaunted “97% consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming is just more malarkey
by Dr. David R. Legates
By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree: Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.
The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another.
People can and do have some influence on our climate. For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow. But humans are by no means the only source of climate change. The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.
As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.
It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die.
Moreover, consensus and votes have no place in science. History is littered with theories that were long denied by “consensus” science and politics: plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, a geocentric universe. They all underscore how wrong consensus can be.
Science is driven by facts, evidence and observations – not by consensus, especially when it is asserted by deceitful or tyrannical advocates. As Einstein said, “A single experiment can prove me wrong.”
During this election season, Americans are buffeted by polls suggesting which candidate might become each party’s nominee or win the general election. Obviously, only the November “poll” counts.
Similarly, several “polls” have attempted to quantify the supposed climate change consensus, often by using simplistic bait-and-switch tactics. “Do you believe in climate change?” they may ask.
Answering yes, as I would, places you in the President’s 97% consensus and, by illogical extension, implies you agree it is caused by humans and will be dangerous. Of course, that serves their political goal of gaining more control over energy use.
The 97% statistic has specific origins. Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard professor and author of Merchants of Doubt, which claims those who disagree with the supposed consensus are paid by Big Oil to obscure the truth. In 2004, she claimed to have examined the abstracts of 928 scientific papers and found a 100% consensus with the claim that the “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.”
Of course, this is probably true, as it is unlikely that any competent scientist would say humans have no impact on climate. However, she then played the bait-and-switch game to perfection – asserting that this meant “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
However, one dissenter is enough to discredit the entire study, and what journalist would believe any claim of 100% agreement? In addition, anecdotal evidence suggested that 97% was a better figure. So 97% it was.
Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)
To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements.
Silence, in Anderegg’s view, meant those scientists agreed with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans. However, nothing in their papers suggests that all those researchers believed humans had caused most of the planetary warming, or that it was dangerous.
The most recent 97% claim was posited by John Cook and colleagues in 2013. They evaluated abstracts from nearly 12,000 articles published over a 21-year period and sorted them into seven categories, ranging from “explicit, quantified endorsement” to “explicit, quantified rejection” of their alleged consensus: that recent warming was caused by human activity, not by natural variability. They concluded that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position.”
However, two-thirds of all those abstracts took no position on anthropogenic climate change. Of the remaining abstracts (not the papers or scientists), Cook and colleagues asserted that 97.1% endorsed their hypothesis that humans are the sole cause of recent global warming.
Again, the bait-and-switch was on full display. Any assertion that humans play a role was interpreted as meaning humans are the sole cause. But many of those scientists subsequently said publicly that Cook and colleagues had misclassified their papers – and Cook never tried to assess whether any of the scientists who wrote the papers actually thought the observed climate changes were dangerous.
My own colleagues and I did investigate their analysis more closely. We found that only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide an explicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus. Moreover, this decision was based solely on Cook and colleagues’ interpretation of just the abstracts, and not the articles themselves. In other words, the entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick.
What is the real figure? We may never know. Scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus – that climate change is manmade and dangerous – find themselves under constant attack.
Harassment by Greenpeace and other environmental pressure groups, the media, federal and state government officials, and even universities toward their employees (myself included) makes it difficult for many scientists to express honest opinions. Recent reports about Senator Whitehouse and Attorney-General Lynch using RICO laws to intimidate climate “deniers” further obscure meaningful discussion.
Numerous government employees have told me privately that they do not agree with the supposed consensus position – but cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs. And just last week, a George Mason University survey found that nearly one-third of American Meteorological Society members were willing to admit that at least half of the climate change we have seen can be attributed to natural variability.
Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.
The real danger is not climate change – it is energy policies imposed in the name of climate change. It’s time to consider something else Einstein said: “The important thing is not to stop questioning.” And then go see the important new documentary film, The Climate Hustle, coming soon to a theater near you.
David R. Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
……IMHO ..When the climate STOPS changing, THEN I’ll start worrying !!
..Right now, in Southern Ontario, my ” Dog House ” is getting covered …in snow…in April !! ( I’m in the ” Dog House ” for being too aggressive against certain ” SPAMMERS ” ! ) My bad !
Have you happened to notice the widespread positive temperature anomalies around the Arctic Ocean, Greenland, Europe, Siberia and the west coast of North America? Same question regarding the big dip in the jet stream. There is the explanation for you localized cold weather.
Unbelievable chutzpah Dr. Legates
Saul,
What do you think is the explanation for the late 70’s mid 90’s temp rise?
Incidentally the “localized” cold weather has reached us in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. (Somewhat south of Montreal).
But we get your point. Natural weather variations can explain “colder” anomalies, but certainly not “warmer” trends.
@ur momisugly Dr. Leagates, IMHO not enough stars, I would give you ten at least! And thanks you Sir, I will share this with as many people as I can! ( As we all should).
OOPS!! DR. Legates, apologies for that!
@ur momisugly Saul..have you noticed that the positive anomalies in the Arctic ended around one week ago? …http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Also note that there are four other examples in past years of above average Arctic temps in the DMI historical data.
Especially if it’s colder’n than a WT when it stops!
…Back to ” Snowball Earth ” would not be good for Canada…or the the Northern U.S. !
Marcus …….. DITTO!
Nice review of a chestnut.
..A chestnut on an open, coal burning fire ?
Professor Legates. Chapeau.
I got brain freeze when I read hurricanes……
And why do you leave out the other part of the Cook et al paper where they asked the authors of the papers if they agreed with AGW? They also found 97% agreement there. Doesn’t fit the narrative?
You mean they asked those of the 77 papers they kept and not the other 11,644 they threw out…. Sigh…….. just more of the same deception LOL
..Bill, the liberals have to make stuff up, it’s all they got LEFT ! p.s..( I’m already in the Dog House here, so I can’t use the ” L” word !! )… LOL
No. They asked all of the authors for which they could find a valid email address.
The perpetrators of the Big Lie asked 8547 authors for their opinion and got about 1200 responses. If 97% of those agreed with the perps’ assessment, then that’s about ten percent of the total.
Wagen
You totally miss the point.
Very few scientists would disagree that humans have some effect on the climate
Whether this is in any way significant or dangerous is a totally different matter.
Paul, see for yourself:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
RE Wagen.
So how many of 11,644?
Should give you less than one percent.
Paul,
I was answering this:
https://file.io/5eGznI
Where did that go????
Gerald,
see my first response to Paul to a comment that does no longer exist (see my second response to Paul); see for yourself (I am not going to look up the exact numbers for you).
..Dear, very confused Wagen !! If you do a survey of 11,644 people, ALL Those people have to be included in your ” percentages “, nor just the ones that agree with the result you WANT !!
“see for yourself (I am not going to look up the exact numbers for you).”
Wagen – you’re the one making the claim, it’s up to you to know your stuff and to show your work. Your answer (quoted above) amounts to “You’re wrong, I won’t tell you how.”
Wagen,
The numbers were easy to find. See my comment upthread. It was delayed in being accepted, as are all of my replies.
Paul, first link didn’t work. Second attempt over wikisend (need to click download).
http://wikisend.com/download/541556/image.jpeg
…Oops ! That should have been spelt ” not ” instead of ” nor ” !!
A.D.,
Look here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
It’s in there (why should I feed you information piece by piece when you can go directly to the source?).
Gloateus,
Yeah, only saw your comment later on, as it was not there before. You are right, about 1200 authors. Of the 2142 papers by these authors, 35.5% did not express a position on AGW being true or not (not all research relevant to AGW/ACC is trying to answer the question if it is true or not). Regarding those that did express a position:
“Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”
Wagen please stop spamming your debunked talking point.
Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not. The entire study done by Cook et al. included 29,083 authors from the 11.944 papers used. Thus any discussion of “self-ratings” [paper ratings] needs to be in context to the entire study not the cherry picking exercise you and Cook are attempting to engage in. Dr. Tol already exposed this deception in his peer-reviewed refutation of Cook et al.
“3.3.2. Paper ratings
…the subsample of abstracts that were also rated as papers is not representative for the whole sample […] Cook emphasizes that the consensus rates in the paper ratings and the abstract ratings are similar. A similar result in an unrepresentative subsample invalidates the finding. […] No less that 63% of abstract ratings differ from the paper ratings”
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/cook_consensus.pdf
Can I report Poptech for spamming? Must be about at least three posts saying the same thing. Maybe leave one of them around so I can answer it tomorrow (not sure I will: “stop spamming, illiterate, poor” does not suggest the commenter is fit for serious discussions). Night!
[Reply: Yes, you can report anyone for spamming. But note that you have far more comments, and threadbombings is frowned upon here. -mod]
Please report me Wagen for debunking your propaganda.
Poptech, please stop spamming your debunked talking point. I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not.
The problems with Dr. Tol’s paper arereal and simply arithmetical.
They have been pointed out already in the response to Dr. Tol, published in Energy Policy, Volume 73, October 2014, Pages 706–708
Wagen keeps offering excuses, some things Wagen thinks support the 97% claim.
“we couldn’t find email addresses so the 97% is valid as a result”
“We asked a tiny fraction of authors and that means the 97% is valid”
This is the same logic Cook used in upping his %. In other words if you dont disagree then you agree, this logic was used to half the papers, those that neither agreed or disagreed were disappeared, even though they were over 50% of the literature Abstracts read. Wagen, logic, seriously.
Glosses over the fact papers about TV coverage were considered amongst the 97% censensus.
Or that activists read the abstracts and dont even understand the science. No one read conclusions.
Discussing it with other reviewers.. tut tut.
Changing the rules after seeing some results, tut tut.
Basically this is a worn out old outdated defence, the paper has been completely discredited and those involved told several lies about how the study was conducted.
You need to go to the leg shop mate, you aint got a leg to stand on
Bill H is right, Wagen. You obviously have not kept abreast of dissections of the Cook, et al paper and what the calculations were based on. Laughable at best. This has been covered here extensively and elsewhere. However, it was Obama putting his imprimatur on it that seemed to fix it as a ‘truth’ in people’s minds. But Obama’s judgment is as poor on this topic as it is on how the federal accounting system works (he has no clue), Russia’s recent contribution to getting rid of ISIS (Obama and this Children’s Crusade security council are trying to restart the Cold War), or the ridiculous misinformed claim that Russia invaded Crimea (the 1992 Ukrainian Constitution gave Crimea the legal right to decide its own fate/nationality by referendum, which it did in March 2014) that initiated the sanctions China has taken advantage of which could mean the downfall of the US as the reserve currency by 2030.
You need to dig a lot deeper than political activist palliatives published by the NYT’s so-called science writer as scientific ‘truth’. You need to look at the facts.
Wagen,
Here’s what was in the abstract you link to:
Did you get that? 66.4% of the 11 944 climate abstracts matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ expressed no position on AGW.
So where did the 97% come from?
32.6% pro [“endorsed AGW” in the abstract] + 0.7% against [“rejected AGW”] + 0.3% uncertain = 33.6% of the whole shebang. Cook, et al, arbitrarily rejected 66.4% of the 11,944 abstracts that did mention ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ because they didn’t comport with what he was looking for. I don’t claim this. Cook says it.
32.6/33.6 = 0.970238095
That is how John Cook got 97%. 32.6% of 33.6%.
To repeat: John Cook, et al, just threw out the 66.4% of the 11,944 ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ abstracts because they did not endorse human-caused global waming, or stated no position.
@Mark
“Wagen keeps offering excuses, some things Wagen thinks support the 97% claim.
“we couldn’t find email addresses so the 97% is valid as a result”
“We asked a tiny fraction of authors and that means the 97% is valid””
Whose quotes are that? Not from me.
@MRW,
“Bill H is right, Wagen. You obviously have not kept abreast of dissections of the Cook, et al paper and what the calculations were based on. Laughable at best. This has been covered here extensively and elsewhere.”
Meh. I see a lot of people here who haven’t taken the trouble to look at the actual paper (freely available, quite short, and yes I like to link it so it may reach 500000 downloads soon, you are all working to a press release about this :D), but seem unaware Cook et al actually asked the authors of the papers. Instead they seem to have relied on spin they read on websites.
@MRW
“Did you get that? 66.4% of the 11 944 climate abstracts matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ expressed no position on AGW.”
Can you point out a thing that I said that you think your words rebut?
MRW
April 11, 2016 at 9:11 am
Russia did invade the Crimea, before the referendum. Putin couldn’t deny it, so admitted it:
http://time.com/3752827/putin-media-kremlin-crimea-ukraine/
Also, Ukraine has cause to reject the legality of its dismemberment at the hands of the people of Crimea. Article 73 of the Ukrainian Constitution is unequivocal: “Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum.” Crimea did not allow the rest of Ukraine’s 44 million people to weigh in on the fate of the peninsula, so the March 16, 2014 vote violated Ukrainian law.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/03/economist-explains-10
Not that I have any objection to secessionist movements. It’s just that the Ukrainian constitution doesn’t say what you claimed. If most Crimeans want to revert to Russia, then IMO they should be allowed to do so, even if it means being isolated and reliant on Ukraine for land connections. I suspect that the Crimean Tatars weren’t in favor of Russian control, considering how Stalin treated them.
Seth, parroting what I stated and then ignorantly spamming a response that does not even address what was being discussed is not an argument. The response you cited does not even discuss the section of Dr. Tol’s paper I cited for this discussion, instead it tries to hand wave it away.
Regardless, Dr. Tol refute that nonsense in the same issue of Energy Policy, Volume 73, October 2014, Page 709.
Abstract: In my critique of Cook et al. (2013), I raised a number of issues (Tol, 2014). Cook et al. (2014) respond to a few only. They do not dispute
(1) that their sample is not representative,
(2) that data quality is low,
(3) that their validation test is not passed,
(4) that they mistake a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement,
(5) that the majority of the investigated papers that take a position on (anthropogenic) climate change in fact do not examine any evidence, and
(6) that there are inexplicable patterns in the data.
Wagen, going to Skeptical Science will not help you here.
Wagen, please stop pretending I did not directly respond to your propaganda here.
Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.’s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not a representative sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not. The entire study done by Cook et al. included 29,083 authors from the 11.944 papers used. Thus any discussion of the second part of the paper – the “author self-ratings” [paper ratings] needs to be in context to the entire study not the cherry picking exercise you and Cook are attempting to engage in. Dr. Tol already exposed this deception in his peer-reviewed refutation of Cook et al.
“3.3.2. Paper ratings
…the subsample of abstracts that were also rated as papers is not representative for the whole sample […] Cook emphasizes that the consensus rates in the paper ratings and the abstract ratings are similar. A similar result in an unrepresentative subsample invalidates the finding. […] No less that 63% of abstract ratings differ from the paper ratings”
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/cook_consensus.pdf
Dr. Tol refuted the response to this from Cook et al. as well.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/273901252/Quantifying-the-Consensus-on-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-in-the-Literature-Rejoinder
Abstract: In my critique of Cook et al. (2013), I raised a number of issues (Tol, 2014). Cook et al. (2014) respond to a few only. They do not dispute
(1) that their sample is not representative,
(2) that data quality is low,
(3) that their validation test is not passed,
(4) that they mistake a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement,
(5) that the majority of the investigated papers that take a position on (anthropogenic) climate change in fact do not examine any evidence, and
(6) that there are inexplicable patterns in the data.
@-mod
“[Reply: Yes, you can report anyone for spamming. But note that you have far more comments, and threadbombings is frowned upon here. -mod]”
That is quite a late reply of you. And I don’t think responding to comments on a thread I started is the definition of thread bombing. If people try to counter an argument I make, I think I should be allowed to answer. Note, answering at that point, not using the same text block at several points in the same thread. I have not reported anyone anyway. I just consider Poptech’s style annoying (on the other hand, people may find my style annoying).
Alarmists always find facts annoying.
Assuming you’re right, how many did they ask about the “C” part of CAGW? How much agreement there?
No “C”, no excuse to cripple the world’s economy for a non-threat.
PS I might be mistaken (confusing Cook with the Lew), but didn’t the mag that published it later retract it?
Ok ok,
You can lead horses to water, but you can’t make them drink.
“After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors”
And yeah, you are confusing Cook with Lewandowsky.
…That should read, ” You can lead Wagen to knowledge, but you can’t make him THINK ! “
Marcus,
My original question was:
“why do you leave out the other part of the Cook et al paper where they asked the authors of the papers if they agreed with AGW?”
Nobody answers this. People ask what are the numbers? Make wrong assumptions. Change their posts while I am answering.
And you just try to reverse the point I was making. You can look it up in the paper. Free access! But you didn’t do that, did you?
Wagen appears illiterate as I have answered this repeatedly. He does not understand Cook et al. or what he is even arguing. His argument about the second part of Cook et al. has already been refuted.
Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not. The entire study done by Cook et al. included 29,083 authors from the 11.944 papers used. Thus any discussion of “self-ratings” [paper ratings] needs to be in context to the entire study not the cherry picking exercise you and Cook are attempting to engage in. Dr. Tol already exposed this deception in his peer-reviewed refutation of Cook et al.
“3.3.2. Paper ratings
…the subsample of abstracts that were also rated as papers is not representative for the whole sample […] Cook emphasizes that the consensus rates in the paper ratings and the abstract ratings are similar. A similar result in an unrepresentative subsample invalidates the finding. […] No less that 63% of abstract ratings differ from the paper ratings”
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/cook_consensus.pdf
Change their posts while I am answering…..
=====
Wagen, no one can change their posts……….
Wagen, you are confounding things that are quite distinct. Cook et al. are convinced that “AGW” is a bad thing. Read any of their suggestions as to recommended government climate policy. That means that where someone is reading anything Cook et al. claim, they necessarily need to add that initial “C” – Cook et al. are not polling about AGW per se, but quite definitely about that “C” in CAGW.
No scientist who is not adrift from reality would dispute the idea that human actions can affect “climate” on a local to a regional extent from microscale effects like planting a lawn through UHI to massive agricultural modifications to the landscape. That does not mean though that the effect is necessarily either bad OR good, or for that matter even cummulative – some may cancel others. Further any informed scientist that is concerned about the actual climate of the planet would be aware that planetary, atmospheric CO2 levels have been dangerously low from a biological view point throughout the Pleistocene. Given that, few responsible responsible scientists are actually going to agree with Cook et al. They are clearly neither informed nor nor thoughtful.
That is why when reading their surveys you see them continually reducing sample size until they can claim a near certainty – you see strings of reductions so that in fact their fully qualified claim of consensus would read something like “a consensus 97% of less than 10% of approximately 30% of about 50% the original sample” believe in CAGW. And that is quite simply not science, it is scare tactics politics pure and simple. More over, if you dig into reviews of Cook et al., no responsible social scientist regards their methodology as a legitimate one that would reduce errors to statisically insignificant levels.
In your own link, Cook et al. state flatly in the very first sentence of the Introduction, “An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).” That is, their purpose is both political in its ends, and to affirm a consequent. “Climate policy” must have public support in the view of Cook et al. It would only need such support for politically addressing AGW, if AGW were in fact dangerous – that is CAGW. They are quite honest about the dishonesty of their purpose.
Yet, “consensus” and science are a meaningless pairing. There are more dead, fossil consensii in science’s history than there are scientific triumphs. Scientific consensus has been reliably shown to consistently be wrong either in broad or in detail, and often in both. This arises out of human laziness and a willingness to avoid work where someone’s reputation will stand in for actual work. Consensus in science is a lack of work ethic.
“My original question was:
“why do you leave out the other part of the Cook et al paper where they asked the authors of the papers if they agreed with AGW?”
Nobody answers this. People ask what are the numbers? Make wrong assumptions. Change their posts while I am answering.
And you just try to reverse the point I was making. You can look it up in the paper. Free access! But you didn’t do that, did you?”
Oh stop mr relentless, you keep focusing on this because it’s the only thing you can clutch to, not interested in other questions no? ROFL
How many total authors of the 11000+ papers?
Percentage asked?
What question where they asked?
What were their responses?
Then we can move forward, if you “don’t have the time” then go back to your echo chamber, otherwise lets have it.
Latitude,
http://www.solidfiles.com/v/YAe2GvGQY7jjZ
Now I can’t be certain Paul changed it. He could have deleted it instead and made a new comment. Or someone else did (part of) this. Who knows.
[Reply: You are off base. Commenters cannot change their replies, and moderators never bother. And this is warning #2: stop thread-bombing. -mod]
@Duster,
“Further any informed scientist that is concerned about the actual climate of the planet would be aware that planetary, atmospheric CO2 levels have been dangerously low from a biological view point throughout the Pleistocene”
Citations please.
“In your own link, Cook et al. state flatly in the very first sentence of the Introduction, “An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).” That is, their purpose is both political in its ends, and to affirm a consequent. “Climate policy” must have public support in the view of Cook et al. It would only need such support for politically addressing AGW”
Well yes, “Houston we have a problem”. It is right there. In the paper. The scientists that responded to the request to rate their own paper agreed.
@Mark,
“How many total authors of the 11000+ papers?
Percentage asked?
What question where they asked?
What were their responses?”
All in the paper (or supplementary files). Look it up!
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Almost half a million downloads! 0_o
Wagen, please stop spamming Cook’s debunked paper and answer the questions.
The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.
This is not Skeptical Science were you can censor fact based criticisms.
[-mod]
I gave you a reply. Why won’t you show my post?
Wagen
April 10, 2016 at 12:23 pm
And why do you leave out the other part of the Cook et al paper where they asked the authors of the papers if they agreed with AGW? They also found 97% agreement there. Doesn’t fit the narrative?
===========
Wagen
April 10, 2016 at 12:42 pm
No. They asked all of the authors for which they could find a valid email address
=====
====
I don’t think you realize what you just said…..
Explain it to me
now I know you don’t…
If you’re happy with that. Who cares?
I certainly don’t….
Thanks for a useless conversation!
You need to watch the pea under the thimble very carefully. Cook et al uses three categories for “endorsement” out of a total of seven. The first is that man is mainly responsible, the second is where the abstract says that man is responsible without any quantification and the final one is that the abstract “implies” that man is involved. Later in the report they merge the first two categories.
Note: Most people here (probably 97%) would happily be in category 2. Effectively, that says that man has some influence in the climate.
Only the first category of the seven is saying that man is mainly responsible. The percentage of total abstracts in that category Cook et al claim is 0.5% and only 0.3% after independent checking. This is nowhere near 97%. Getting from one to the other is misrepresentation on a grand scale.
All the authors’ survey is saying is that the authors agree with the rating their paper was given. So they are confirming that only 0.3% of papers (not just the abstracts) say that man is mainly responsible.
You can confirm the 0.5% (reduced by others to 0.3%) by looking at the data on the SkS site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home
Thanks for a useless conversation!
===
just following your lead….
Thanks graphicconception ….the pool keeps getting smaller and smaller
Graphic,
“All the authors’ survey is saying is that the authors agree with the rating their paper was given. So they are confirming that only 0.3% of papers (not just the abstracts) say that man is mainly responsible.”
No. Article says:
“To complement the abstract analysis, email addresses for 8547 authors were collected, typically from the corresponding author and/or first author. For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers (the entire content of the article, not just the abstract) with the same criteria as used by the independent rating team. Details of the survey text are provided in the supplementary information (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia).”
Wagen does not understand Cook et al. or what he is even arguing. His argument about the second part of Cook et al. has already been refuted.
Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not. The entire study done by Cook et al. included 29,083 authors from the 11.944 papers used. Thus any discussion of “self-ratings” [paper ratings] needs to be in context to the entire study not the cherry picking exercise you and Cook are attempting to engage in. Dr. Tol already exposed this deception in his peer-reviewed refutation of Cook et al.
“3.3.2. Paper ratings
…the subsample of abstracts that were also rated as papers is not representative for the whole sample […] Cook emphasizes that the consensus rates in the paper ratings and the abstract ratings are similar. A similar result in an unrepresentative subsample invalidates the finding. […] No less that 63% of abstract ratings differ from the paper ratings”
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/cook_consensus.pdf
Wagen,
Go to the SkS website. You can download the self-rating data. I did. The data shows 2,136 papers self-rated. Out of those 2,136 papers, 224 were rated in Category (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming). This is the definition of the Consensus position per the iPCC, and per the Cook Paper, where it specifically states: “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)”
So, the self-rated papers shows 224 papers out of 2,136 papers expressing the consensus position (Category 1). That’s a 10.5% consensus.
Wagen,
Here is the link for the self rating data: http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/self_vs_abstracts_private.txt
In the Cook paper, Figure 4, Cook comes up with a phony self-rating endorsement of 97.2% by combining 3 levels of endorsement. Endorsement level (3) Implicit endorsement (Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause) simply does not even come close to meeting the endorsement definition that humans are very likely causing most of the current warming. Endorsement Level 2 does not meet the criteria either, since it does not quantify how much of the current warming is being caused by humans.
Skepticgonewild wrote: So, the self-rated papers shows 224 papers out of 2,136 papers expressing the consensus position (Category 1). That’s a 10.5% consensus.
If you’re going to include papers that didn’t take a position on the subject, you’re missing counting what are comfortably over half a million papers published in that decade. You should be claiming less than 0.05% consensus. If you don’t care about that obvious flaw.
The idea of Cook is to compare endorsement vs rejection of a particular point in the scholarly literature. If you want to only include explicit endorsement or rejection with quantification, the figures from self rating were 96.1% consensus.
Choosing different criteria for the pro-consensus and anti-consensus papers doesn’t allow for an accurate comparison.
It would be wrong to count only category 1 answerts as agreewing with AGW, and here is why.
If we were to survey biology papers for endorsement of evolution, we would not expect most papers to specifically state that they believed evolution was true. Most papers would take the position of assuming evolution were true, and thus would fall into the “implicit endorsment” of evolution. If we say we are studying something that only makes sense to study if evolution is true, we endorse it implicitly.
If an author of such a paper were asked what point of view the paper takes, given the levels of agreement Cooke et al use, they should answer that it “implicitly endorses evolution”, since that is the position the paper takes.
It would be very silly to say that only those papers that explicitly endorse evolution as representing the level of consensus, since there would be very few papers taking this position.
Or if we surveyed astronomy papers for heliocentric solar system. Very few would bother to state this, but most would implicitly endorse this position. Therefore it is wrong to count only the category 1 answers as endorsing the AGW position, just as it would be wrong to count only category 1 answers for evolution or heliocentric solar system.
We must of course count those that implicitly reject whatever theory we are testing. Any paper that said that life on Earth had been unchanged since the beginning, or that assumed the moon was the center of the solar (lunar?) system would be counted in the “against” category.
All surveys operate by calculating the percentage of people taking part, not the total asked.
The agreement between the self assesment and the rater assement is evidence that the rating is accurate.
They also ignored authors who said their assessment of their paper was wrong. Disappeared, not counting as not agreeing, so cook logic goes “An activist reading an abstract can decide if a scientific paper supports a hypothesis, and that evaluation carries more weight than the authors”
LOLOL
@scepticgonewild,
“Go to the SkS website. You can download the self-rating data. I did. ”
In what way does that contradict what I said? I bemoaned Legatus not taking into account the authors’ own classification of their papers. Legatus leaves out a huge part of the evidence.
Wagen,
How do you call 2,136 papers being self-rated a “huge” part of the evidence, when the non self-rated total was 11,944?
This is what you quoted earlier:
“Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”
That is simply an untrue statement. The “consensus position” as defined by Cook in his paper is: “..scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. That is an explicit endorsement with quantification, “most”, which relates to level of endorsement (1).
According to the data, 760 papers express “no position” per the author’s self rating. That leaves 1,376 papers that state a position. Of those self-rated papers, the authors only rated 224 papers as expressing the consensus position (Category 1) that humans are causing most of the warming. That is a 16.3% consensus, not 97.2%.
Poor Wagen, Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/273901252/Quantifying-the-Consensus-on-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-in-the-Literature-Rejoinder
+1
“11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors”
used in abstract rating vs
“2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors”
used in paper rating by the authors.
-> much more than 4% of the articles rated by an author!
“Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.”
Yes, it is true that many authors of papers that were -based on abstract only- classified as neutral, classified their own papers -based on the whole paper- (don’t know if one or more of the authors) to be supporting AGW. Deal with it 🙂
Wagen appears illiterate. Lets try this again, “Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.”
I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not. The entire study done by Cook et al. included 29,083 authors from the 11.944 papers used. Thus any discussion of “self-ratings” [paper ratings] needs to be in context to the entire study not the cherry picking exercise you and Cook are attempting to engage in. Dr. Tol already exposed this deception in his peer-reviewed refutation of Cook et al.
“3.3.2. Paper ratings
…the subsample of abstracts that were also rated as papers is not representative for the whole sample […] Cook emphasizes that the consensus rates in the paper ratings and the abstract ratings are similar. A similar result in an unrepresentative subsample invalidates the finding. […] No less that 63% of abstract ratings differ from the paper ratings”
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/cook_consensus.pdf
Wagen,
In case you did not see my post above. I’ll repeat it.
Go to the SkS website. You can download the self-rating data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/self_vs_abstracts_private.txt
The data shows 2,136 papers self-rated. Out of those 2,136 papers, 224 were rated in Category (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming). This is the definition of the Consensus position per the iPCC, and per the Cook Paper, where he specifically states: “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)”
So, the self-rated papers shows 224 papers out of 2,136 papers expressing the consensus position (Category 1). That’s a 10.5% consensus.
Cook deceitfully combined 3 levels of endorsement to obtain his phony 97.2% self rating endorsement in Table 4 of the study. Endorsement levels (2) and (3) do not meet the consensus position even defined by Cook in his paper. :o(
Wagen you just got mullered mate, now you are resorting to out and out delusion.
Now it’s “96.4% OF THOSE RESPONDING” in lieu of “97% of scientists”
Hahahahahahah, these nuts just keep deluding themselves, it is not us they are fooling, but themselves, they want to “believe” so badly
“difference is stark: the dissensus rate rises from 2.0% to 8.6% whenthe marginal distribution is used, but falls to 1.9% when theconditional distributions are used”
Dos this mean we may be talking about 92% rather than 97% consensus?
@poptech,
I see you are using building blocks in you comments.
I argued:
“944 papers written by 29 083 authors”
used in abstract rating vs
“2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors”
in paper rating”
You repeated yourself in your response.
“(1189 of 29,083)”
If you want a discussion you have to take into account what the other person says instead of repeating your own points (and bold-facing them :D).
@Mark
“Wagen you just got mullered mate, now you are resorting to out and out delusion.”
Ah! Ok! Thanks for telling me!
Wagen, please try to follow the discussion.
Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.’s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not a representative sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
I understand you enjoy propaganda but the readers here do not. The entire study done by Cook et al. included 29,083 authors from the 11.944 papers used. Thus any discussion of the second part of the paper – the “author self-ratings” [paper ratings] needs to be in context to the entire study not the cherry picking exercise you and Cook are attempting to engage in. Dr. Tol already exposed this deception in his peer-reviewed refutation of Cook et al.
“3.3.2. Paper ratings
…the subsample of abstracts that were also rated as papers is not representative for the whole sample […] Cook emphasizes that the consensus rates in the paper ratings and the abstract ratings are similar. A similar result in an unrepresentative subsample invalidates the finding. […] No less that 63% of abstract ratings differ from the paper ratings”
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/cook_consensus.pdf
Poptech,
You are not the discussion leader.
[Reply: Mr. Wagen I would be careful. No one leads these discussions. Moderators just try to keep them from getting out of hand. In your case, you are thread-bombing: arguing incessantly with everyone about everything. You have made your point about what you believe, despite at least one peer reviewed paper refuting Cook, et al. that has never been factually contradicted. If that paper had serious errors, it would have been retracted, or at least a Corregendum would be published to correct any errors. Please just state your opinion, and leave it at that. If someone posts new information, please limit your reply to the facts posted. -mod]
[Moderators don’t discuss decisions. You’ve been warned about threadbombing. End of discussion. -mod.]
Wagen, I never claimed to be the discussion leader but I have repeatedly responded to your so-called argument(s) which you never addressed and instead either ignore or try and hand wave away. This is not Skeptical Science where you can use the moderators to censor inconvenient facts.
Here is another scientific concenus fight that is in the process of turning around. There is hope yet.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
And in this scientific dispute about fat vs. sugar, not long ago, about 100% of the leading nutrition experts were convinced that to much saturated fat and cholesterol should be the only reasons for heart disease … 😉
How ironic that – of all people – just our AGW-concensus-loving friends from THE GUARDIAN are on the skeptics side in that fight for scientific freedom and progress! But nevertheless, this excellent article by Ian Leslie is quite entertaining and very well written.
For more comments about the topic see here:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/08/why-climate-sciences-condition-is-terminal-science-has-suffered-the-very-same-fatal-disease-before/#sthash.JAeCTOwm.dpbs
…The real danger is not climate change – it is energy policies imposed in the name of climate change….
The UK has survived the Winter – there were no really cold spots with low wind. Now we have an equally dangerous Summer to get through.
Our problem is that we have bought into wind power and sacked all the engineers who told us that it would be uneconomic, because we had to have back-up fossil fuel stations available all the time in case the wind stopped. This was OK during the Winter – we needed all the energy we could get, and all the power stations were gainfully employed. In the Summer this will not be the case.
In the Summer we will have to pay ALL the power stations, PLUS the windfarms to run. If we don’t pay them, they will close down. But when we do that we will have far too much energy to use. And it will be unpredictable energy – so we can’t plan on building new factories or some other system to take advantage of it – besides, it will only be available in the summer…
I see that the Germans are going to call a halt to their windfarms, since they have disrupted the grids of neighbouring countries by dumping power when it was not needed. I don’t think that the UK can do this. We may well be paying to ship electricity to France, but we won’t be able to get rid of much through that route…
To Naomi Oreskes: how can I claim the money owed to me by big oil please?
This is hardly a “useless climate myth”. It has been used very effectively as a club to beat the skeptical but unknowledgeable into submission. It is the club of the “consensus”. The “consensed” are incensed that it has not been more effective, as evidenced by the recent fascination with RICO.
..President Cruz cannot get into office quick enough !! A lot of trust in scientific integrity has already been lost !
If Mr. Cruz is a “natural born citizen” simply because one of his parents was a citizen, then every descendant of any US citizen is a “natural born citizen” even if they never set foot in the country . . even if neither of their parents ever set foot in the country . . Not gonna fly I fear, if Mr. Cruz is the nominee, Marcus.
The citizenship of Cruz is likely a red herring which probably does not belong on this board. Still, Cruz meets the statute in effect when he was born. That law has residency terms for the US citizen parent. The “never set foot in the country” fails that residency term. The majority of the law review articles on this topic (going back almost 50 years) support “NBC” for people in the fact pattern of Cruz. So far every court which has heard a complaint about Cruz has either ruled in his favor on the merits or dismissed for lack of standing. A law prof running a mock presidential campaign has filed the most recent case, which will have its first hearing Mon Apr 11th. “Science” is about “What’s a fact?” “Law” is about “Which facts matter?” Consensus DOES matter in law. It’s not supposed to matter in science.
You’re wrong.
I have a South American friend whose grandfather was a US citizen. Her father thus is a natural born citizen of the US, but she isn’t. Whether you’re a natural citizen born abroad depends on the law in effect when you were born. Cruz’ mom qualified, so he is a NBC. It just means he was a citizen from birth, not needing to be naturalized.
It’s in the Constitution, folks . . any sort of law that includes the phrase is totally irrelevant. Congress can’t just pass some law that defines “arms” as those things extending from your shoulders and we lose the right to bear the noisy kind ; )
John,
The statutory law defines who is a citizen or not at the time a person was born. The Constitution uses what was a stock phrase from British Common Law, with an understood meaning. Another such phrase is “well-regulated militia”, which means properly drilled, equipped and organized, with eligibility requirements such as age.
“Natural born citizen” simply means anyone who was automatically a citizen from birth. It doesn’t mean born in the USA. No president was born a US citizen instead of a British subject until Martin Van Buren. If you aren’t a naturalized citizen, but one from birth, then you’re eligible. Maybe “native” and “natural” are to easily confused.
Here’s a good Harvard Law Review article on the topic, written by two former Solicitors General of the USA:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
That is also my understanding–“natural born citizen” has always been , in practice, not naturalized.
Even if you’re correct, they still could not run for president unless they have been an actual resident of the United States for 14 years prior to running for president.
John K
Statutory construction and the limits of Congressional authority; such things are the stuff of lawyers and judges. There will be ample time for courts to – – again – – rule on this point. I expect this next challenge to Cruz (Mon in the US) will be dismissed for lack of standing or shortly thereafter on a motion for summary judgment. Of course lay people are perfectly entitled to argue for what they think the law ought to be. What it is; that’s a different story. So I’m just going to let the courts finish the “is” part.
Think. please. folks . . Both major political Parties (and their presstitutes naturally ; ) don’t want that man to be President. Both. If you want some “good ole boy” Repub the Party bosses favor to be the ultimate nominee, then keep supporting Mr, Cruz . . I warn in all seriousness.
Don,
Yes, they would have to 35 and have been a resident for at least fourteen years, I was speaking of the “origins” aspect only . . my bad there.
The 97% saga will continue in 3 days when Cook and co will argue that 100% of consensus studies agree — they do not. Cook will also admit that the Cook 2013 paper contains a number of inaccuracies in the description of how the data was collected.
Cook admitting anything wrong will be a win.
If anyone could point to any dangerous effects of anthropogenic CO2 on any global climate parameter after 40 years and a half-doubling, there wouldn’t be a need for a 97% saga, nor the d-word for that matter.
In fact, if there were such a problem, the d-worders would be the first ones to fix it, while the useless blowhards would be fighting about how to get the credit.
Phil,
Assuming 285 ppm in AD 1850 and 400 ppm now, CO2 has grown over 40% in 166 years. The world is warmer, whether CO2 contributed to that as a cause or an effect, which is a good thing. It has also benefited from more plant food in the air.
Negative effects, not so much. Sea level has been rising at about the same rate in recent decades as since escaping the depths of the LIA around AD 1700.
“Cook will also admit that the Cook 2013 paper contains a number of inaccuracies in the description of how the data was collected.”
Did you review the paper or see a pre-print?
@richard Tol
I have just looked at the paper now it has been published. I can see no admissions that Cook 13 contains a number of inaccuracies in the descriptions. Perhaps you could provide a pointer?
We’ve entered the post-modern era. Science is no longer about the search for reality. And free speech is forbidden. The search for reality and for beauty has been replaced by political correctness. Whole areas of honest inquiry are now forbidden and punishable. Even history is being re-written with politically correct fantasy replacing reality. In the post-modern era reality has been replaced with what people wish it to be rather than by what it actually is. To misquote someone much greater than myself, the lights are going out all over the world.
Very true, as well as AGW, manipulated history, we also have, political correctness (radical Islam immigration) about to cause a civil war in Europe, which is the very opposite of what the EU represents.Students who do not want to face “unpalatable truths”, economies with huge debts, caused by left wing thought and deed. Finally though, destroying the successful capitalist system, by denying cheap energy to the nations that have the greatest (left wing inspired),national debt. Article 21 of the UN talks about redistribution of wealth, (not eradication of poverty). The World in all my 60+ years has never been such a dangerous place, because if the Left succeed with their triumph of hope over experience; we will enter a world that we left in the 15th Century. The New Dark Age is about to begin!
And now we have entered into the post COP 21 era!
The U.S. is about to enter into an era of self-destruction.
Per Wiki:
“The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time” British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey remarked to a friend on the eve of Britain’s entry into the First World War. First published in Grey’s memoirs in 1925, the statement earned wide attention as a correct perception of the First World War and its geopolitical and cultural consequences.
@ur momisugly Marty (12:56 pm April 10) and Andrews”s answer @ur momisugly 1:20 pm April 10, I sincerely hope you are both wrong but I know that is just wistful thinking, you are both right and the speed at with this is happening both in the EU and the rest of the Western world is frightening. I think this coming summer with the elections in the US ( let alone the looming conventions, one of witch is in Chicago of all places), the Brexit vote and other votes?. It is going to be a turning point. With the level of anger at the establishment with now the Panama paper revelations added to the mix I really do not see a solution.
..I like how you slipped ” witch ” in there …he he !!
Marty,
You’ve put it well. As far as I’m concerned, the debilitating effects of political correctness are by far the most severe issue that currently faces the West.
This secular version of Praying in Public means that we are no longer free to publicly debate the issues without some cadre of self-righteous moral preeners attempting to put our views outside the boundaries of acceptable public discourse.
What happens to a society where the citizens are no longer permitted to speak openly about the most serious problems they face?
Just a tiny bit OT but we have updated our latest story with a video of the CEO of First Wind (Now Sun Edison) boasting about all that stimulus money they got.
http://dailybail.com/home/sunedison-the-biggest-corporate-implosion-in-us-solar-histor.html
Enjoy!
As a rule we add extra material in the comments.
john
History is littered with theories that were long denied by “consensus” science and politics: plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, a non-geocentric universe. FIFY
I just finished the essay and thought it sounds about right. Then I looked out the window and there I see Ponderosa Pines, Washington Hawthorn, Oregon Grape, Cottonwoods, Rabbit Brush and a dozen or so other plants. These were all here when we moved onto the place in 1989 and, as far as I can determine, all these have grown here for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Seems the plants I live among did not get the President’s tweet, or maybe they don’t pay attention to anything he says or writes. I’ll check in the morning to see if they got up and moved during the night.
Got to watch that rabbit brush! It can be very sneaky!
Yep, that stuff can be hare raising.
Mr. Legates, you stated near the end of your posting:
“Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry”.
While I do agree with the opinion of the climate change hoax, when I ‘discuss’ (read; argue) my points with the AGW believers, I like to have references for my facts..
Question, do you have (or anyone else have) a reference to the “$1.5-trillion-a-year industry” figure? I would hope it’s based on figures from the AGW ‘industry’ itself..
Regards..
MikeH
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/
I’ve collected some other links to the money at:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/bigmoneyscaring.html
i’m seeing a pattern here – alarmists relying on proxies (papers or abstracts in this case) – which are susceptible to confirmation bias (strongly biased authors interpreting the mindset behind the papers or abstracts)
I heard the 97% claim as recently as Saturday (April 9), made with clear conscience by Avi Lewis (cameraman for Naomi Klein) on “The House”, the CBC (radio) politics program. (To hear his glib but inaccurate statements listen to: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/avi-lewis-leap-manifesto-ndp-1.3515000; he makes his “97%” statement around 3:26.) I will be sending this posting to “The House”.
Timely. Thanks.
Ian M
..OMG..Now a camera man’s opinion counts in the 97% ?? The liberal’s desperation is “Worse than I thought!”…. LOL
Send them this as well: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
Avi Lewis is the husband of Naomi Klein and s/o Stephen Lewis former Canadian Ambassador to the UN.
Naomi Klein is in the 350.org with Bill Mckibben. And Bill McKibben is in Tar Sands Solutions Canada with present and former members of Greenpeace.
And Stephen Lewis was close friend of the late Maurice Strong.
@ur momisugly Barabara.6:35 pm. Peas in a pod….. and so on and on and on…
Greenpeace photo Naomi Klein, at their Netherlands office, Nov.25, 2014
http://www.photo.greenpeace.org/archive/Naomi-Klein-at-Greenpeace-Netherlands-Office-27MZIF3UVFR2.html
———————————————————————–
Vice News, Dec.4, 2015
Application to Commissioner of Competition Re Climate Science Misrepresentations filed Dec.3, 2013
Stephen Lewis is a party to this action along with Tzeporah Berman, former Greenpeace activist, and others.
https://news.vice.com/article/watch-out-climate-change-deniers-the-canadian-government-could-be-coming-for-you
No decision yet? None with internet search. There is more information on this event on the internet.
Tarsands Solutions Network, Canada
Steering Committee includes:
Bill McKibben, 350.org
David Turnbull, Oil Change International
Tzeporah Berman, former Greenpeace activist and party to the Competition Bureau Complaint filed Dec. 3, 2015 in Canada.
http://www.tarsandsolutions.org
Should be: http://www.tarsandssolutions.org
Avi Lewis is married to Naomi Klein.
Avi Lewis wants Liberal government to adopt parts of Leap Manifesto
Lewis says he wants Leap Manifesto principles to be ‘law of the land’
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/avi-lewis-leap-manifesto-liberal-government-1.3527842
Avi Lewis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Lewis
CBC News, Sept.15, 2015, Canada
‘Environmental manifesto unveiled by Naomi Klein, backed by celebrities’
As shown in the photo include:
David Suzuki
Bishop Mark MacDonald
http://www.cbc.ca/news/environmental-manifesto-unveiled-by-naomi-klein-backed-by-celebrities-1.3228920
MikeH, I suggest you read this Bloomberg article regarding the trillions the green fools are wasting:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-13/climate-deal-requires-16-5-trillion-investment-to-cut-pollution
Wow wow wow… incredible. Climate change theory IS driven by facts, evidence, and observations. As a professor of climate I would assume you would know the basics of atmospheric radiative transfer and that the Earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius since 1880 and that this can clearly be attributed to increased CO2 emissions. You are letting your political bias form your argument and not the majority of the data.
Charlie Phillips said:
…this can clearly be attributed to increased CO2 emissions.
Wow wow wow. “Clearly attributed”? By whom? Algore?
That has been refuted so often here that I won’t waste my time doing it again. I’ll just point out that you made a conjecture. But without measurable data, it’s nothing but an opinion.
Got empirical, testable measurements that quantify what you’re asserting? Post ’em if you’ve got ’em. You will be the first — and on the short list for a Nobel prize.
Charlie, you sound more like a kindergarten teacher, ok, maybe first grade teacher, but that’s as far as I am willing to go.
Can you share the data you were referring to, so we can evaluate your claim here?
Why would anybody care about the basics of atmospheric radiative transfer, when atmospheric heat transport is dominated by convection and water phase changes? Models of the atmosphere using radiative transfer end up predicting a mid-troposphere hot spot, which, surprise, is not there.
Unexpectedly.
Like dbstealey said…Show your work Charlie. Otherwise you are just full of hot air…
Sorry, Charlie!
CACA is driven by lies, suppression of evidence and models. Actual facts and observations all show Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism to be an ideologically motivated crock.
The IPCC won’t even attribute most of the warming up until the middle of the 20th century to “increased CO2 emissions.” Are you suggesting they have a political bias that blinds them from realizing that all of the warming since 1880 “can clearly be attributed to increased CO2 emissions?” Idiot.
@ur momisugly Charly Phillips, Data please? And your statement, ” As a professor of climate I would assume you would know the basics”, Are you the “professor” or are you assuming others are?
Apologies , it should read Charlie Phillips.
No need for assumptions – in the post it says “David R. Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware.” It is this that Charlie refers to, I think. And why the belittling language (not you asybot, but Janus above). If Carlie is a kindergarten teacher that does not invalidate the message.
dbstealey – there is lots of data in the IPCC reports. If you want one single piece that refutes the “Natural” explanation, then Prof Lovejoy says “Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels > 99%.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2
seaice1,
Once more for the slow learners: there is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. Therefore, the climate Null Hypotheisis has not been falsified — which in turn falsifies the Alternative Hypothesis: that human CO2 emissions are causing accelerating global warming. The data shows that is not happening; quite the contrary.
So because the alarmist cult lost the science argument, paid pundits like Lovejoy simply assert a “99%” likelihood that human CO2 is the planet’s temperature control knob. Could any evidence-free claim be more outlandish? And you actually believe that??
Just because you believe something doesn’t matter. Post measurements. Then we can discuss them. Unfortunately, in the dozens of times I’ve asked, you haven’t posted any. You just assert your opinion. So really, you’ve got nothin’.
And hey, whatever happened to Charlie Phillips? Did he skedaddle? Or are you his tag-team pal?
“…simplistic bait-and-switch tactics…
Sort of like saying that you oppose cruelty to animals on a poll and then later finding out that PETA counts you as one of their supporters?
Great analogy!
perfect analogy!
@ur momisugly Piper Paul, + 1!
It’s 97% alright but that is how closely calculated average global temperatures match measured average global temperatures since before 1900; true even when human influence is ignored. Peer review can be DIY on your desktop computer. Including the influence of added CO2 increases the match by 0.1%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Dr. Legates, did you purposely leave out the equally flawed but oft mentioned “Doran and Zimmerman” survey?
I think it important to include and debunk ALL major 97% “studies” because the “consensus” side loves to tout “the consensus about the consensus”.
I can’t count how many times I heard “OK, Cooks study was flawed but Klein/Oreskes/Zimmerman et al ALSO came up with the same conclusion (and percentage).
<None of these folks, including academics, are bothered by the fact that all these studies, using altogether different means, came up with exactly the same 97%.
“Merchants of Doubt, which claims those who disagree with the supposed consensus are paid by Big Oil to obscure the truth …”.
=====================================
These dolts’ reasoning powers are genuinely puerile.
For instance the chief of BHP Billiton has assured investors that “the group’s petroleum division is here to stay”.
‘Big Oil’ are not idiots, they know their product is indispensable for the foreseeable future, that so-called ‘renewables’ don’t work and are useless except as ‘boutique’ energy sources.
The same apples to ‘Big Coal’, in that sense there is no parallel with the tobacco industry.
Why would they bother to pay anyone to counter the CAGW propaganda, let alone spread ‘misinformation’ themselves — the only propaganda they would have used is the usual brand advertising.
What about petitionproject.org’s 31000 US scientists who are deniers?