Already 240 Published Papers In 2016 Alone Show the “97% Climate Consensus” Is A Fantasy

From Friends of Science Newsletter by Albert Jacobs

Kenneth Richard has compiled a list of 770 papers published since January 1,  2014 that contradict the IPCC consensus statement, see here.

This includes 240 papers published during the first half of 2016, as shown here.

The list of papers includes 43 on solar influences, 27 on natural ocean oscillation, 2 on Rossby waves, 3 on ozone, 6 on the small effect of CO2, 11 on natural variability, 11 on clouds and aerosols, 3 on CO2 stratospheric cooling, 15 on past climates, 4 on settled science, 19 on Climate Model Unreliability, 2 on urban warming, 6 on volcanic forcing, 2 on warming oceans, 7 on miscellaneous topics, 2 on forest fires, 2 on cold vs heat deaths, 6 on climate policy, 7 on extreme weather, 20 on polar ice, 9 on sea level rise, 12 on ocean acidification, 2 on hurricanes, 4 on droughts, 3 on natural climate catastrophe, 7 on greening and crop yields and 1 on low climate sensitivity.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bloke down the pub

La La La, I can’t hear you.

Mark from the Midwest

Just for reference: The proper phrase in the U.S. is “neener-neener-neener …… what did you say?”


“Tekkin’ the dug fer a walk, Pet.”


Who are these people and why aren’t they facing criminal charges?


Give Sen Whitehouse more time.

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

Lou Maytrees

Michael Crichton was a science fiction writer, a Hollywood and television director, and screen writer. Not a scientist of any accomplishment at all but he was an accomplished Hollywood screen writer and director.

Paul Courtney

You need not be a “scientist of any accomplishment” (whatever that means) to observe the behavior of others, especially others who are no more “scientists” than you are, who think telling you “well, scientists (or world leaders) all think this” is convincing. Seems even Hollywood screenwriters can see through such appeals to authority.


Rather more than just a screenwriter, at least according to CBS News:
Born in Chicago Oct. 23, 1942, Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
Crichton’s 2004 bestseller, “State of Fear,” acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. His views were strongly condemned by environmentalists, who alleged that the author was hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
Crichton’s first bestseller, “The Andromeda Strain,” was published while he was still a medical student. He later worked full time on film and writing. One of the most popular writers in the world, his books have been translated into thirty-six languages, and thirteen have been made into films.

Lou Maytrees says Michael Crichton “was not a scientist with any accomplishment at all”.
Dr. Crichton (yes, he was an M.D.) graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College — a major accomplishment right there — after earning a Harvard Medical School M.D. He was also a postdoc fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. That sounds like a scientist with real accomplishments.
Crichton also taught Anthropology at Cambridge; a science course. And writing at MIT, and he did computer modeling for several decades. His CV notes that Dr. Crichton’s…
“…multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.”
Maytrees, you had just one job — and you blew it. You tried to denigrate Michael Crichton as “not a scientist with any accomplishment at all”, but you didn’t do even a one minute search to make sure you weren’t posting ignorant nonsense.
Yes, Michael Crichton wrote science fiction, too. You know, like those other non-scientists, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke.
Dr. Crichton also predicted way back in the 1990’s that global warming would rise about 0.8ºC. That’s a more accurate 20 year prediction than just about anyone’s. It’s certainly a much more accurate prediction than the IPCC, or Michael Mann, or almost any other climate alarmists you can name.
Speaking of “accomplishments”, tell us, Louie: what’s your CV? Got one? Or are you just taking potshots at someone who accomplished far more in his short life than you ever will? Just wondering what ‘accomplishments’ could qualify you to pass your judgement on a real scientist…

Lou Maytrees

An ‘M.D.’ is a physician, once again, a different meaning from that of a scientist. So Crichton is still not a scientist with any accomplishments, especially in the field of climate science. An excellent fiction writer but not a scientist, as per climatism’s post on scientific consensus.

“…he obtained his bachelor’s degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964 and was initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.
Crichton later enrolled at Harvard Medical School…”
Doesn’t look like he ever practiced medicine, but he was quite well educated in the sciences, so to characterize him as a sci fi writer is “damning with faint praise” to the extreme.

Lou Maytrees

its interesting gregole, your link to Wikipedia also does not say that Crichton was a scientist. They list a bunch of things but not ‘scientist’.

He was bang on correct about “consensus science” being the “last refuge of the scoundrel”….

Lou Maytrees

Crichton simply co-opted poorly the real truism “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Here is a great piece by Michael Crichton.
That was 13 years ago, and Crichton hit the nail on the head. Here’s a taste:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature. There’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion; that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.

Enviros aren’t even aware of it, but they are full-on religious fundamentalists; the truest of True Believers. The Jehovah’s Witnesses could learn some real old time religion by watching how the eco-crowd does it.

Lou Maytrees

lol, fun analogy db – except science is the exact opposite of religion. Religion is based on faith, science on known facts, an organized body of knowledge. A dictionary will show you the completely different meaning of the two words. And Crichton is still a Hollywood fiction writer as ‘environmentalism’ is not climate science either.


I am afraid you logic is failed, as you fall for the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority (“scientist” vs “not a scientist”).
You also misconstrue what a scientist is–it is merely a profession used for a paycheck, and extremely broad, like engineer. Rather than taking the arguments of the quotes and evaluating them, you make a religious allusion to “scientists” as if they were some sort of priests that allow you to ignore the quotes rather than face the meaning behind them (which is ultimately a form of intellectual cowardness or laziness). Sometimes a person working as a scientist has some knowledge yet unpublished (and thus not fully scrutanized), but other than that we scientists know nothing more than what everyone else can freely know. Nor are we trained in any special or secret way, but simply in the knowledge already gained and methods behind such, which anyone can also learn in equal measure. We can be as equally right or wrong as any other commentor.
And while science is a body of knowledge gained through a particular guiding philosophy of defined inquery, extrapolations from that knowledge, such as by computer models, are used religiously by taking them as fact when they are not. All of the philosophy of science is built on mistrusting any idea presented until facts sufficiently support it–and no extrapolation is supported, by definition.

Lou Maytrees

well Ged, i don’t need to ‘take the arguments’ of quotes from a fiction writer. He simply stole one from a known truism about patriotism and all of the quotes talk about ‘scientific consensus’. Just wondering, is there a scientific consensus about ‘gravity’? Or on and on. Do all scientists believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? Is that a consensus? Crichton is simply trying to make an unsubstantial point, its useless to take an argue about.

Samuel C Cogar

Lou Maytrees, ….. give it up, …. your display of intentional ignorance and stupidity is utterly appalling.
Anyone that is self-taught and/or earned a Degree in one or more of the sciences is, by definition, …… a scientist.
“DUH”, Charles Goodyear was a “self taught” scientist.
But not all said “scientists” are capable of performing actual scientific work ….. and many of those who claim to be “scientists” are just like you with your claim of being “educated” because you have a High School Diploma ….. that says so.
I am a scientist, ……. and I have the Degrees and the “track-record of accomplishments” to prove it.
What have you got, Lou M, …… anything, ….. other than “a place” at the government feeding trough?

Lou Maytrees

I don’t know you from Adam, Samuel, but you yourself have received government financial support and a full scholarship thru the gov’t, plus who knows what else, and yet you’re accusing me of ‘feeding at the government trough’? It is laugh out loud- the pot calls the kettle black once more. Yours is a very generous definition of anyone involved in the physical and life sciences and what a ‘scientist’ is or not, so why are climate scientists not considered scientists here?


Al Gore made a science fiction movie, too. We shouldn’t listen to him, either.

Bill Powers

Michael Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1964 and received his MD from Harvard Medical School in 1969
If your argument is that obtaining your MD doesn’t qualify you as, what were your words, “…a scientist of any accomplishment…” then you don’t understand science.

Lou Maytrees

Bill, he received his MD but never did anything with it. He immediately became a fiction writer after receiving it (and before) and then a Hollywood film director and writer. Hence he was never ‘a scientist of any accomplishment.’ Scientists of accomplishment publish scientific work that they have done, Crichton published fiction books and worked in Hollywood, he did not publish any scientific work or accomplish anything as a scientist. It does not matter if he graduated cumma sum laude or whatever, he still did not accomplish anything in the science world. He was a writer who wrote fiction.

Bill Powers

Your argument is without merit. In fact it is laughable. I hear from true believers constantly that the only people who can speak on climate change are a narrow band of scientific specialists. And even then, when a specialist, e.g. John Christy speaks out skeptically regarding CAGW you attack his bona fides.
By your weak logic only political science majors would be qualified to speak on politics, only economist could speak on economic issues, etc. And what is worse, even they would not be allowed to speak on their fields of expertise if they did not go out and get a job in said field.
Bollocks. I’m just guessing here, you don’t have an MD do you Lou! Ergo by your logic you have no right to speak out about it. You obviously have no comprehension of what an ACCOMPLISHMENT it is to graduate summa cum laude from Harvard let alone to achieve your MD from there.
But the thing that really makes you clueless is that you believe the hypothesis of “Anthropogenic Global Warmi…er we really meant Climate Change all along” is so complex that only a select group of people are capable of comprehending the threat and therefore we must all bow down to superior expertise and do as they instruct. Not going to happen.

Lou Maytrees

well Bill, i never attacked Christy’s bona fides as you claim, only stated Crichton did not work at being a scientist, his life long job after graduating from college was as a writer and Hollywood director/writer. As for ‘er … climate change’, the IPCC was founded under Reagan in 1988. Do you know what the CC in the title stands for? Again, that was in 1988. And it was Frank Luntz, a republicon pollster and operative, who wrote a famous memo to GWBush in 2003, suggesting he and all Cons to stop using the term ‘global warming’ and start using ‘climate change’ instead. So … err.

Bill Powers

Well look who finally showed their true colors by injecting politics into a discussion on the science of CAGW. Lou your petticoat is showing. Oh and my point about Christy was made to point out the hypocrisy of the laughable “Peer Review Process”
But thanks for injecting politics into the comment stream which only serves to expose your true motivation.. Republicrat or Demoplicans second verse same as the first. Politics in this country is corrupt and it has corrupted science with no greater example than the fantasy that is CAGW and the expanding wealth of one ALGORE.

Lou Maytrees

Bill writes “Anthropogenic Global Warming … err we really meant Climate Change all along” but then claims oh no its not me, no its someone else who injected ‘politics’ into it. Wake up Billy, try and sort out where those words in your mind come from and what they really mean.

Bill Powers

You really are a useful idiot aren’t ya louie.
I have been told by my many religious service attending congregants 18 years past that the evidence of global warming could be found in rising Average Global Surface Temperatures. Why back in the early turn of the 21st century when non-believers would offer up that a given winter was colder than usually and the snowfall bordered on record accumulations your fellow church clergy would argue that you can’t conflate weather with climate.
Along the way the word went out after more than a decade of GST pause that the issue was climate change! forget this notion of Global Warming. The believers realized they needed to flip the script. After all Climate Change can be found within the title of the UN Agency that was chartered to prove an adverse relationship between man and the environment. Of course we meant climate change stop twisting our words. So the media began to get your message out that the problem was Anthropogenic Climate Change and the best part was that the proof could be found in, wait for it, THE WEATHER! Hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards, OH MY!. They even made a movie devoid of real science but heavy on emotionalism title “The Day After Tomorrow.” You all thought that helped to deflect attention away from ALGORE and MANN’s discredited docudrama complete with the hockey stick assurances. As if.
So lou when I point out that the scientific community has been duplicitous by flipping the script from Anthropogenic Global Warmin…er we really meant climate change all along, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the true religious believers and their rigged system of peer review which has downplayed this not so subtle shift in making up bs as they go along to explain the abject failure of their models and subsequent predictions.
And still the only one that has injected left vs right, Democrat and Republican into this thread is you indicating that yes you probably have a political agenda. Hmm by all evidence CAGW/CACC is devoid of empirical data and real science. Maybe you are onto something Lou. Maybe this is about politics and bureaucrats. Could this possibly be about the government wanting to develop mechanisms to control the masses while diverting millions into their personal overseas bank accounts?

Lou Maytrees

Wrong again Bill. You injected Democrat – Republican into the argument. I mentioned in 1988 under Ronnie Reagan a republicon, the IPCC was created. Nothing about Democrats at all, so that is all on you Billy. But i know you’ll claim diff except its all there in b&w for all to see. And sadly you don’t get it, global warming or climate change, they both mean the same basic thing. The fact the term Climate Change was used for a major organization way back in 1988, disproves your other political claim too.

Bill Powers

Your first point is a iie and your second point is patently untrue as anyone who has been paying attention from the beginning knows. “The end is nigh” crowd first predicted “irreversible global warming due to Man-Made CO2 and they produced a hockey stick diagram to illustrate it.
I don’t have to debate the lie with you. Anyone can go back and read the comments themselves. My reference to politics was to call you out for being first to inject them into the discussion. Aside from that I don’t need politics to argue the lack of scientific evidence in your chicken little theory of Catastrophic Global Warmin…wait, wait we really meant Climate Change all along.
Go back and watch the docujoke “an inconvenient Lie” ALGORE laid it all out for you before the peer reviewers flipped the script to violent weather. You guys have never once explained how science itself proves that the climate has changed long before man discovered fossil fuel. We know it did so maybe you should worry about what caused ii then likely happening again instead of campaigning against the very element that will save your life during the next ice age, fossil fuel. Note that word likely it is a popular modifying adjective in every “peer reviewed” fiction ever published.
So those of us who know that the climate changes and are scratching our heads trying to figure out where your evidence is that CO2, a 4 parts per million trace element, is the evil root cause, are branded deniers when in fact we don’t deny one bit that the climate changes. Yet you guys are all over the board scrambling for new explanations about every five years
You are so detached from the truth that even liar doesn’t explain you position. delusional psychotic completely detached from reality works best.

Lou Maytrees

Bill, here’s a secret for you – climate change 1980s, global warming 1990s, climate change 2000s, they’re still the same thing. They both mean the same thing. Global warming is climate change is global warming is climate change is …, etc. But don’t tell anyone, its a secret.

Bill Powers

You seem to be incapable of understanding that the “chicken little” bell that Mann and Gore were ringing a decade ago, that temperatures were rising irreversibly torching the planet is much different than the current bell ringing which matters not if temperatures rise or fall “we have the catastrophe covered”.as defined by our “Peer Review” panel
If rains too much, if the wind blows too hard, if blizzards come, if blizzards don’t come, If it floods somewhere, if there is a drought somewhere, Lou those hurricanes are absolute proof that this time it is the fault of 4 parts per million of CO2 in the atmo. in essence if weather is happening we will call it climate and blame it on man burning fossil fuel, then advocate for government to intervened over an unproven hypothetical. The hypothesis that once was globe warming not theorizes that any change in weather is proof of theory. But you demostrate an inability to see the difference in narrative.
Lou’s back to being a useful idiot for this government flim flam

Samuel C Cogar

Lou Maytrees said:
I don’t know you from Adam, Samuel, but you yourself have received government financial support and a full scholarship thru the gov’t, plus who knows what else,
You just hafta be a “Louise” to be parroting such an outrageous claim against my person.
Hell hath no fury like an irate female reacting to her self-embarrassment.

Lou Maytrees

Sammy, i simply checked your ‘scientist’ claim online. You came up as having accepted gov’t financial aid and a full gov’t scholarship at the U of Delaware. Gov’t financial aid is ‘a place at the gov’t feeding trough’ (your words) whether one can admit it to yourself or not.


“so why are climate scientists not considered scientists here?”
Because they don’t act as such.
They make up models and make claims. The models can simulate any short term trend but they pretend there is some magic which makes the model work over long term, probably due to some analog of the “central limit theorem” which they probably can’t name anyway (they don’t really seem to be talented mathematicians).
When the predictions fail, repeatedly, they explain that those are actually “projections”, which is fancy way of saying “our tea leaves reading methods may not be accurate”. They explain the failure of reality to conform to their idealized models with unverified (and unverifiable with their unscientific approach) additional hypotheses, where warming caused less ice or more ice, less snow or more snow, etc. They make up stuff as they go; just as any pseudoscience. Can’t reproduce your mental spoon bending power in a controlled environnement in front of an illusionist? It doesn’t prove the spoon bending was an illusionist trick, just that there are negative forces send by the non believers!
This is how you recognize pseudoscience: every failure of the unverifiable theory is explained away by surabondant additional hypotheses which cannot or will not be tested. (Lou, I hope you will read this sentence slowly as it is EXTREMELY important.)
You can sometimes add additional hypotheses to help a theory which has great consistency and describe the real world very well; not so to save a non working theory that consistently fails.
“Reconstructions” of the past are mostly laughable guesstimates based on many simplifying assumptions. They sometimes result with “predictions” of a past widely different from the documented history, and climate “scientists” then say historians are wrong, obviously (!).
So called “climate” scientists don’t need to have any documentable qualification in “climate”, whatever that is. The main qualification of Jean Jouzel (I hope I don’t need to introduce him) is in isotopic measurement, not atmospheric sciences!
Climate scientists aren’t united by common (verifiable) qualifications but by:
– a herd mentality that makes them protect each others more than corrupt, racists, abusive cops; any criticism on obviously flawed work is an attack on “science”, whatever that is (no, there isn’t a single object we call “science”);
a dependency an indecent amount of gov money whose allocate is predicated on an indecent stream of indecent more catastrophic predictions projections or guesstimates like “hottest year evah”, a guess with probability <50% (!!!!).
Lou, you can’t seem to recognize corruption when it is right in front of you. But things are mostly what they seem. What looks like corruption is almost always corruption.

L. Maytrees says:
well Bill, i never attacked Christy’s bona fides as you claim, only stated Crichton did not work at being a scientist
Deflection. Maytrees actually wrote that Dr. Crichton was not… “…a scientist of any accomplishment at all but he was an accomplished Hollywood screen writer and director.”
Maytrees is all over the map, trying to cast Michael Crichton in a bad light. But Maytrees fails; Crichton demonstrated that he was more qualified than most scientists: how many graduates have summa cum laude on their degrees? And who elected ‘Lou Maytrees’ to pass judgement on who is, and who is not a ‘scientist’?
It is immateriel whether Dr. Crichton continued in a scientific field, or decided it was in his best interest to become an author. His books and related activities gave him a net worth close to $200 million. It’s a decision a lot of scientists would make.
And Lou Maytrees has never answered my previous questions:
…what’s your CV? Got one? Or are you just taking potshots at someone who accomplished far more in his short life than you ever will? Just wondering what ‘accomplishments’ could qualify you to pass your judgement on a real scientist…
Maytrees also exhibits his own religious pseudo-science beliefs when he says:
Religion is based on faith, science on known facts, an organized body of knowledge.
Dr. Crichton showed that the cult of ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ is based not on ‘known facts’, but on their enviro-religion:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. …Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
Where are the “known facts” quantifying AGW? Answer: there aren’t any convincing facts, measurements, or observations. So folks like Maytrees fall back on their enviro-beliefs, and they attack anyone who relies on measurements — you know, what a real scientist does.
In every comment s/he makes, Maytrees keeps falling on his face by trying to disparage someone highly educated in the hard sciences. Maytreess also falsely claimed there’s no mention of “science” in Crichton’s Wikipedia bio, and that he only wrote science fiction. Apparently Maytrees just invents whatever he/she wants, factual or not.
Louie/Louise or whatever, we get it: you’ve decided the ad hominem logical fallacy is the best argument you’ve got. And it probably is. Because out of all the skeptics of the man-made global warming false alarm, Michael Crichton is probably the last person you would ever want to take on. Crichton already destroyed Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel in a public debate. Based on your lame arguments here, debating with you would be easier than taking candy from a baby.
But since Dr, Crichton has passed away, you’re safe from being in any debates with him. That’s a good thing for you, because based on your illogical, emotional, and eco-religious arguments here, if Crichton was around he would demolish your juvenile attempts to misrepresent and denigrate his accomplishments.
Which brings up the unanswered question about your own lack of accomplishments. You still haven’t posted what qualifies you to judge someone like Dr. Crichton. Got any science-based accomplishments? Or are you just doing some easy ad hominem trolling by attacking someone who can’t respond?

Lou Maytrees

dbs, gregole supplied a link to Wikipedia where Chrichton’s occupations are listed as “Writer, film producer, film director, screenwriter, television producer”. Thats all, nothing more, not a single word about his being a ‘scientist’. And we’re talking about science here, specifically climate science, in which Chrichton did no work nor did he accomplish anything in that field, which is what was meant. His equating ‘environmentalism as a religion’ is his own personal belief but still has nothing to do with science either, especially climate science. You post a quote from him about what he claims the ‘beliefs’ of environmentalists to be, but then he shows no evidence of what those are. Just an abstract quote. So Chrichton didn’t ‘show’ anything, he only showed what his personal beliefs were. Science, or the study of and knowledge about general truths and the operation of general laws based on tested facts is quite different from someone’s ‘beliefs’. a The rest of your gallop is just silly, talk about being ‘all over the place’ dbs, lol.

L. Maytrees has posted nothing more than ad hominem bluster and deflection in his feeble attempts to denigrate a famous scientist. Maytrees has no good arguments. He only uses logical fallacies. And he has certainly avoided answering any of the questions asked of him. My last paragraph specifically pointed out Maytrees’ lack of qualifications. If he was qualified to pass judgement on a scientist of Michael Crichton’s stature and accomplishments, he would be eager to post his own accomplishments… if he had any.
But Maytrees cannot even spell the good doctor’s name correctly! So obviously, he’s making up his ad hom arguments by furiously cutting and pasting from the consistently unreliable ‘authority’: Wikipedia. Because anyone even vaguely familiar with Dr. Crichton’s scientific essays and accomplishments would at least be able to spell his name correctly, no?
But thanx to Maytrees for his uniformed opinion; that’s what makes a market. Readers can decide for themselves whether Dr. Crichton is the unscientific dud portrayed by Maytrees — who is not even up to speed on the subject enough to be able to spell the name of the person he’s been trying so hard to denigrate.
If we deleted all of Maytrees logical fallacies, and ignore his uneducated personal opinions, his commentary would amount to this: ( “…” ).
Dr. Crichton was right: the enviro-religious crowd needs something to believe in, and their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare fits the bill perfectly. Any scientist who questions or disagrees with their eco-religion is an apostate — and apostates must be destroyed, if possible, by all right-minded True Believers. Thus, Maytreess attacks Crichton.

Lou Maytrees

dbs, So you don’t understand the difference between an essay/speech and a scientific paper, what else is new? And i spelled his name wrong, thats about all you have eh? The Crichton articles you quote were for speeches he gave trying to build his pre judged case, he takes quotes out of context to bolster his own prejudices, something he claims scientists are not allowed to do, even in those same speeches of his. His is the perfect pretzel logic, claiming scientists can’t do it even as he does it himself. You quote “Aliens Cause Global Warming” (lol, very scientific) where Crichton claims Carl Sagan said the planet would be 35* colder b/c of a Nuclear Winter but fails to mention that Sagan in the same article talked about the temperature mitigating factor of the worlds oceans in such a scenario which would help warm the planet greatly. Crichton makes up a falsehood to try and prove his prejudice by using a partial quote, not the whole of it. And on and on. “Environmentalism as Religion” is the same, he purposefully misconstrues people who don’t share his pov. And on and on. In “The Case For Skepticism …” he shows charts of two cities that were just as warm in the 1800s as the 1990s but doesn’t show the 500 other cities of the world that were warmer during those same time periods. Simple cherry picking to try and bolster his falsehoods. Two cities are not the whole of the planet. And of course the two city charts he posted end in the mid 1990s and don’t include the most recent 10 years of climate temp, they don’t even inc 1998. How very convenient for him. Writes a speech in 2005 but leaves out the previous 10 years of global temps. Not v scientific is he? But i see why you defend him, his essays are your goto textbook for every claim you make. Sadly, if you visit his website there is a quote from him “Salk had an idea that along with the biomedical people who were primarily staffing the place, he was going to have writers and artists in residence. So i sent him a letter and said ‘I was a writer. He said come. So I went.” So much for your claim he was a scientist at Salk Institute. He was a ‘writer’ there, and in his own words.

That’s very interesting. I remember when that article came out about the nuclear winter in Scientific American. A few months later the house was robbed. What was taken ?, a junkie stereo system, ten speed bike, a jar of coins and, what I didn’t find out until a year later, that particular issue of Scientific American. I went to reference it and ta da… gone. So I went to the library, and for that month and that issue the article was none existent. It was for that month and year, completely different. I often wondered whether I had gotten that copy by mistake. I’m sure it exists since some people quote it off and on, but not readily. I haven’t seen it since. .
The military planners are that time only took into account blast damage. The nuclear winter wasn’t an immediate effect. Among one of the things that the new and improved nuclear bomb does is that it causes things to burn which normally you wouldn’t think would burn. Of course forest fires and all the stuff that are in cities would produce a lot of dust. I thought it was a fairly convincing case for a nuclear winter. The full effect of an exchange of nuclear weapons is unthinkable. It’s suicide on a global scale. Why bother to launch, explode them on site.
I can think of a whole range of issues that are a lot more pressing, urgent, and dangerous than climate change. I don’t know why so much time and effort has been spent on what is essentially a non issue.
From a national security standpoint, the solutions provided by the IPCC and others are detrimental to the well being of the United States and any EDC. That’s primary, and secondary is the claim the slight warming is caused by co2. From an entirely different prespective, we hope it never gets cold like in the early and mid 1970 ‘ s . The entire climate change based on co2 chant is a lie. I look upon the IPCC and associates as enemies of the United States. If it were merely in the scientific area where this argument was taking place, I would’t view it as such. But I look at the agenda and what CAGW is doing. I suppose that’s why they are trying so hard to silence us. They aren’t doing this for the good of mankind.

Maytrees says:
i spelled his name wrong, thats about all you have eh?
Wrong again. I have plenty more, in addition to what I and many other commenters already told you. No one agrees with you, and you avoided answering any of the questions you were asked. And the fact that you were ignorant of how Dr. Crichton spelled his name shows that you were winging it all along. The fact is, you have nothing except your constant ad hominem logical fallacies. But we use what we have …eh?
I’ve followed Crichton for the past thirty years, both his fiction and non-fiction; his science and his commentary. As others have pointed out, Dr. Crichton is an internationally esteemed writer and scientist. But in your futile effort to try and denigrate his accomplishments, all you’ve done is expose how little you know.
Next, your cherry-picked complaint that temperatures prior to 1998 were not shown is nonsense. We’re constantly posting charts and related information showing global temperatures. For example, this is what the wild-eyed Chicken Little crowd is panicking about:
(Click in link to embiggen)
Notice the dotted line. That’s the rise in global temperatures (in ºF) over more than a century. Notice that global T has not accelerated, thus debunking the notion that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.
Notice also that temperatures change by much more from one year to another than the total rise in global warming since 1900.
I have lots more charts showing the same natural rise. Posted on request.
Next, every scary, alarming prediction ever made by the climate alarmist crowd has failed to come true. Those predictions were *all* wrong. No exceptions.
But the eco-religionist ‘greens’ simply disregard that. Why?
Answer: because they are motivated by their religious belief, not by facts, or the lack of evidence. Crichton had you pegged, and you don’t even know it.
If and when scientific facts change, scientific skeptics will change their minds. But religion is different. It is based on faith. That’s why the alarmist crowd can never change their minds; they are controlled by their eco-religion. As Crichton pointed out, their Belief is every bit as much a religion as any traditional religion.
You have your faith, your Paradise, your beliefs, your sacraments, your path to salvation, your catechism, and your tithes (Greenpeace is happy to collect your indulgence dues). As Crichton said, those are part of your faith. And the thin veneer of science is an added bonus that gives the enviro crowd an excuse for head-nodding in agreement: “Scientists say…”
Since facts, measurements, data, and observation are what motivates skeptics, and faith is what motivates eco-religionists, we have no common ground. All the believers in man made climate change need to do is produce measurements quantifying AGW in a way that is acceptable to most other scientists, and they can convince skeptics to change their minds.
But skeptics can never change the faith-based beliefs of the climate alarmist crowd. That’s why they call it “faith”. Environmentalism copies religious fundamentalism. Faith is their entire motivation, so it doesn’t matter that the Real World has been debunking the ‘climate change’ scare.
If enviros were persuaded by scientific facts, and measurements, and observations, and logic, the “dangerous man-made global warming” conjecture would have been defenestrated long ago. As Prof Feynman said, if your hypothesis is contradicted by observations, it’s wrong.
Empirical observations show conclusively that the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is wrong. But the piles of grant money paid to universities and their tame scientists keeps that clique in line. At least I understand how money motivates people. But the eco-religious lemmings who believe in their narrative don’t have that excuse.
They don’t need an excuse. Their faith is enough.


He was also a doctor,

The guy is all over the map, constantly trying to denigrate Dr. Crichton. Maytrees would have some credibility if he posted why anyone should listen to him. What qualifies him to pass judgement on someone of Dr. Crichton’s status? Anything?
Someone posted one of the many Crichton biographies upthread:
…Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
Anthropology is a science subject, and Cambridge certainly isn’t a junior college. But since Maytrees can’t defend his belief in the CAGW scare, the eco-religion cultist attacks the individual. It’s just another ad hominem logical fallacy that loses the argument.
As for Scientific American, that used to be a very good publication. But it has gone straight downhill since it reported objectively on scientific subjects.
Now Sci-Am is just another partisan screed trying to convince its readers that CO2 is a problem. It’s not. Now that enough evidence is in, we know that more CO2 is a net benefit, with no observed downside. But the enviro crowd can’t accept that fact, because it conflicts with their true belief. That’s the difference between faith, and science…


We just have to redefine peer reviewed science, again.
Easy: solar influence isn’t peer reviewed, unless it shows no solar influence.

Bill Powers

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Therein lies the key to the puzzle that is Consensus. Cross swords with any true believer in the Church of CAGW and they parry with “Not peer reviewed” within their first three thrusts. Then they drop their sabre and walk away. .
I guess I would to if I controlled what qualifies as real science with a peer review process that also dictates the flow of funding. No need for empirical data when you preach the gospel according to Michael, James, and Al.


‘The consensus’ has already stated that they would take no notice of any papers that contradict their position, including their existence. Just like the Chinese government and the South China Sea.

Or Baghdad Bob…


Not so fast, you have not correctly processed this data through a super computer that models what papers really mean. First you must Cook up the data and Mann for upside down hockey sticks. In Lew of poor results, then a total d-Nye-all off all papers is necessary. The 97% meme must not die

george e. smith

Well at least you have to take the average of ALL of those categorical numbers, for the different subjects, and report on what is the average subject that (climate) scientists are reporting on (at the 97% confidence level of course.)
And the study (bring grant money) should continue, and be reported on each month; a la the pause/stop/hiatus/interruption/whatever, so they can then calculate the trend in climate related subject subjects,
Poke me man is not a climate subject so papers on that will be rejected from the survey.

I think we have to repeat the original Doran/Zimmerman 97% baseline study …
77 ÷ 10,257 = 0.7% Survey Candidates
77 ÷ 3,146 = 2.5% Respondants
77 ÷ 244 = 31.6% Active Climate Researchers
77 ÷ 144 = 53.5% Climate Scientists
77 ÷ 79 = 97.5% Who published > 50% on AGW.
… each and every year, and then use the new numbers to calculate the anomalies from what we knew was TRUE in 2008 so that we can determine the current trend, which equals a future projection. Heck, it could be a 99% consensus by now !!! It’s worse than we thought.


From the link:
Yamakawa et al., 2016
“Conclusion: In summary, diverse aspects of the solar signal on the Earth’s surface can be explained solely by solar UV heating changes in the upper stratosphere which penetrate the troposphere through two pathways: the stratospheric westerly jet in the extratropics, and the stratospheric mean meridional circulation in the tropics, as suggested by Kodera and Kuroda (2002). … [C]entennial-scale solar signals could also be explained by a change in the spectral distribution of solar irradiance, with changes only in the UV part of the solar spectrum, EVEN IF THE CHANGE IN TOTAL ENERGY WAS NEGLIGIBLY SMALL. (my caps).
This paper (at least) does not challenge the 97% consensus.
It is not a new finding that solar UV changes affect Stratospheric flow (chiefly the Polar Night Jet) and thus via a down-welling, the Trop PJS. This in turn deviated south as a -ve AO develops.
This is not a net change in absorbed solar energy (therefore cannot drive GW), but rather a redistribution of heat in the climate system as polar air-masses are pushed south, and thus temperate air-mass north.

Stephen Wilde

I wasn’t previously aware of the Kodera and Kuroda paper which fits with my work here:
in which I go much further than they do in describing the detailed mechanism for multi-decadal climate variations.


It really is sad how alarmists tie themselves into knots to avoid acknowledging the obvious.
You don’t need a change in total energy in order to impact climate.


If they cooked their tax returns the way they cook their climate model data, they’d all be in jail.


This paper (at least) does not challenge the 97% consensus.

The problem is to define the ‘consensus’. The paper does not challenge the actual consensus. It does challenge what the alarmists say is the consensus.
The alarmists say the consensus is that the only thing that matters is the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. They say that the consensus is that if we do not curtail our emissions of carbon dioxide, the results will be catastrophic. There is no shortage of papers that challenge the alarmists’ version of the consensus.
Please, please, please do not confuse reality with alarmist propaganda.

Toneb – I think you have got it exactly backwards. You, the IPCC and the models argue that without a net change in solar energy the sun cannot drive any change in climate.Y et al are saying that there IS a significant effect in spite of a negligible change in solar energy. IOW, their evidence shows that you are wrong.


Read what I wrote and this time comprehend it please.
I said solar spectral variation (specifically in UV) is known to affect the Stratosperic polar night jet. This shifts air masses (on occasion) to cause regional changes in temp.
THAT is the effect they talk of.
NOT GW … As the premiss of this article would have it.

Ted O'Brien.

As I ssked from day one, if 97% is the answer, what was the question?

Tom in Denver



If 97% is the answer, then, they are asking the wrong questions.


… if 97% is the answer, what was the question?

Does a dog have Buddha-nature?
or alternately (depending on the day and month)
42 / 43.298969072164951 (approximately)


Maybe Kenji knows.


This is from something I read in the comments at the Guardian:
The categories in Cook et al (2013) “explicit endorsement without quantification” and “explicit rejection without quantification” are oxymoronic if the consensus the abstract of a paper supposedly endorses is either:
a) “climate change is happening and is caused by mankind” (meaning 100% of all observed warming is the result of human emissions) or
b) “climate change is happening and is caused mainly by mankind” (meaning greater than 50% of all observed warming is the result of human emissions).
Therefore the consensus Cook et al (2013) claims to have found cannot be either of those, and any subsequent attempts to imply that it is, should be ignored.
If an abstract contains no indication of how much warming is down to humans (i.e there’s no quantification) then there’s no more reason to put it under “explicit endorsement without quantification” than there is “explicit rejection without quantification”, if the consensus that abstract is supposed to be endorsing or rejecting is either a) or b). If you don’t know the level of quantification in that paper then there’s no way to know whether it endorses or rejects such a consensus. Yet, all papers rated ended up in one of the six categories, and therefore the consensus being surveyed cannot have been a) or b).
This only leaves the consensus they found to be “climate change is happening and mankind plays a role” or, as Cook et al put it, “humans are causing global warming” (yes, but how much, of the total observed warming!?). This is unquantified (by which I mean, the percentage of warming due to mankind is unquantified). This means that the categories are, essentially, set up incorrectly in the first place. The only rejection category required would be one in which an abstract rejects humans as a cause of global warming entirely. This would have resulted in a higher consensus percentage, yet would be a consensus that the vast majority of sceptics would agree with anyway.
The consensus statistic as it stands, from this paper at least, is meaningless.


3 on CO2 stratospheric cooling,

Warmists would say that this is proof of AGW: CO2 blocks heat from escaping and thus cools the stratosphere.
This ‘trick’ ™ is done by drawing a straight line ‘trend’ through the data and concluding a long term decline in TLS which is ‘compatible’ with claims of AGW due to GHG.
The art is to IGNORE what the data really tells us.:comment image
The cooling occurred in two clear step-like changes and has been in a ‘plateau’ ever since.
This is NOT due to GHG and is NOT a result of the Montreal protocol, which at this point has made minimal changes to atmospheric CFCs.
The signature is clearly volcanic and indicates a more transparent stratosphere was the result a few years after each eruption. I short nature, in purging the volcanic aerosols also cleared out some other accumulated ‘ pollution’ and destroyed a significant amount of natural ozone.


Note the initial warming of TLS. This is the counterpart to the lower climate system cooling as a result of volcanic aerosols: the classic ‘nuclear winter’ story.
what climatologists wilfully ignore is the subsequent opposite effect: which is semi permanent. If the initial warming of TLS reverts to a durable long term cooling, we should probably expect the opposite thing in the lower atmosphere: initial cooling followed, a few years later, by a net warming above pre-eruption levels.
Climate models simulate this exaggerating the AGW due to GHGs. Firstly they need to over-come the loss of heat caused by the solar blocking of volcanic aerosols, then they need to simulate the warming caused by a more transparent stratosphere. To achieve this, they tweak some of the poorly constrained climate parameters in the models for which we have little observational evidence to guide us. Principally the nature and magnitude of cloud feedbacks.
They compensate for the long term WARMING effect of changes in cloud cover and falsely attribute this to GHG. In the absence of any significant stratospheric eruptions since Mt Pinatbuo, this results in the much discussed excessive warming since Y2K and the exaggerated sensitivity of climate in most climate models.


Having recognised the nature of the natural forcing and its consequences, we can compare to the changes in the lower climate system, seen here is the extra-tropical SH ocean temperatures.comment image
There is a lot of ‘noise’ from other variability in the lower climate system, which is more complex than the stratosphere and takes longer to warm due to the large heat capacity of the oceans ‘mixed layer’, but having been alerted by the changes in the stratosphere we find the same ‘fingerprint’ in the lower climate system.

Bruce Cobb

100% of those who use the 97% meme are out-and-out bald-faced liars.


No, the majority are ignorant fools who unquestioningly accept something which fits their alarmist world-view.
simple bias confirmation. Activist scientists and journalists are quite likely being wilfully misleading. Foolishly thinking that they are helping “the cause” rather than realising that they are destroying it.


Re: “the majority are ignorant fools who unquestioningly accept something which fits their alarmist world-view”
Indeed. They are Useful Idiots.

Bruce Cobb

Yes, that too.They are still liars though.

Dr. Strangelove

97% climate consensus is actually less than 2%


..I love all these videos..thanks !

But its 97% of that 2%, so they are correct. And only climate scientists that the IPCC acknowledges as climate scientists. And by those standards only properly peer reviewed papers matter. Papers and research by anyone else is irrelevant.


Do 97% of biologists agree about evolution? Do 97% of doctors agree that vaccinations are generally a good thing? Do 97% of doctors agree that AIDS is caused by HIV virus? I don’t know the exact figures, but probably round about.


Seaice, I am not surprise to find out you are a vaxxer.
Do you at least know that there are several types of vaccines?
Do you know that some vaccines can cause the effects of the infection? Do you know about the flu vaccine induced flu syndrome?
Do you even know the hep B vaccine is linked with a terrible increase of MS, an awful incurable disease? (and the forms caused the vaccine seem much worse than the natural form) Do you know that the HPV vaccine is linked with paralysis and death? Do you know one pregnant rat died? (Do you not care about pregnant rats during tests?)
Do you know that vaccination doesn’t always create lifelong protection? Do you know that many disease are much more dangerous when people get them latter?
Do you know that the protective effect of the flu vaccine has never to proven, at any age? Yes, a mandatory, dangerous vaccine has never been demonstrated as better on real benefits (no seropositive isn’t the effect people want) than a placebo.
Do you know that the pharma industry uses false placebos that cause harmful side effects, so they can pretend the vaccine don’t cause more harmful effects?
Do you know that MD are censored when they criticize vaccines? Do you know the regulatory agencies are in bed with Big Pharma?


Lie and repeat. Obviously the game plan. The USGS Colorado lab closed for falsifying data was heavily involved in important mercury studies. Data that was the foundation for regulations and lawsuits. 97 percent chance that the falsifyed data ran in one direction.

Lou Maytrees

The ‘Inorganic Lab’ was closed only, not the whole USGS lab in Colorado.


A scan of the papers that allegedly refute the “97%” consensus in AGW seem to rely on solar cycles (and in at least one case on a Milankovitch NH solar minima).
We know this cannot be the cause of current warming.
Ask Leif.
See my above post about spectral irradiance variations – and how that cannot be a driver.
I came across one paper mentioned that mentions GCR and clouds.
That *may* have some merit.
Would anyone care to list any others linked to by this post that may actually do what it purports?
Or are “we” just taking it for granted?

Toneb, I can give one that matters. The difference in how they calculated global warming on TSI. The number they used is wrong without question.

john harmsworth

Give the world your formula for rejecting papers without reading them. Just think of the time and mental energy this will save! Nobel prize for everything-over here!


I didn’t say I read them.
I said that most were of solar cycles that were known of and cannot be a driver of GW.
I asked for someone to post up one that does what the dog-whistle purports.


I have looked at the included abstracts and excerpts of several and not yet found one that contradicts the “concensus”. Most would probably be “neither agree nor disagree” since they do not mention global climate at all, or if they do they do not say anything about if changes are caused by man.
One I looked at is probably “endorse without quantification”, although I do not know the exact criteria used.
Moriarty and Honnery, 2016:
“Fossil fuels face resource depletion, supply security, and climate change problems; renewable energy (RE) may offer the best prospects for their long-term replacement.”
It clearly accepts that fossil fuels have a climate change problem, and certainly does not contradict the “concensus”.
All in all it is a nonsense list. I second Toneb’s request, please show me at least one paper that contradicts the consensus.


Well, not that I doubt the conclusion (that 97% consensus does NOT exist), but just to be clear, if there are 25,667 total papers on the subject, and only 770 refute, or offer alternative theories to, AGW, then there is a 97% consensus. My point is, simply, without knowing how many total papers have been published on the subject, the 770 number isn’t necessarily relevant to the “97% consensus” question.

I agree. There are more effective ways to shred the 97% consensus meme than paper counts, even presuming the papers are correctly categorized.
Probably at least 97% agree that climate changes on multidecadal to centennial scales. We have the LIA and SW US droughts as evidence. But only about 57% of AMO members think the most recent period of rising temps (~1975- ~1998) is mostly anthropogenic. The reason is the statistically indistinguishable rise from ~1920- ~1945, where even the IPCC said it could not have been mostly anthropogenic. (The attribution problem.) Moreover, temperatures have not risen this century except for a now rapidly cooling El Nino blip, yet during that tome about 1/3 of all anthropogenic emissions have been added to the atmosphere. Even fewer think whatever anthropogenic warming there may be poses serious risks. Warming leads to longer growing seasons. The CO2 fertilizer effect is greening the planet. Previously predicted ‘catastrophes’ simply have not happened. Snow has not disappeared, SLR is not accelerating, Arctic summer ice has not disappeared, polar bears are thriving, and there are no climate refugees. The computer models that predict such things (on which the minority of alarmist scientists rely for their alarm) have now been proven faulty by the pause, the tropical troposphere hot that is modeled to exist but doesn’t, and the absence of polar amplification in Antarctica. Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for CAGW.

Hoyt Clagwell

Rishpin- even knowing the number of papers doesn’t really give you an honest percentage because the whole thing begins with the faulty assumption that papers written about global warming and climate change are always written by neutral scientists. The fact is that people who believe in AGW are far more likely to write papers about it than people that don’t believe in AGW, and the more they believe in it, the more papers they are likely to write about it. So the papers are always going to be slanted greatly towards the believers in the same way that papers written about flying saucers will be written almost entirely by believers and very few by non believers.


Saw the following amongst the Guardian comments the other day:
The categories in Cook et al (2013) “explicit endorsement without quantification” and “explicit rejection without quantification” are oxymoronic if the consensus the abstract of a paper supposedly endorses is either:
a) “climate change is happening and is caused by mankind” (meaning 100% of all observed warming is the result of human emissions) or
b) “climate change is happening and is caused mainly by mankind” (meaning greater than 50% of all observed warming is the result of human emissions).
Therefore the consensus Cook et al (2013) claims to have found cannot be either of those, and any subsequent attempts to imply that it is, should be ignored.
If an abstract contains no indication of how much warming is down to humans (i.e there’s no quantification) then there’s no more reason to put it under “explicit endorsement without quantification” than there is “explicit rejection without quantification”, if the consensus that abstract is supposed to be endorsing or rejecting is either a) or b). If you don’t know the level of quantification in that paper then there’s no way to know whether it endorses or rejects such a consensus. Yet, all papers rated ended up in one of the six categories, and therefore the consensus being surveyed cannot have been a) or b).
This only leaves the consensus they found to be “climate change is happening and mankind plays a role” or, as Cook et al put it, “humans are causing global warming” (yes, but how much, of the total observed warming!?). This is unquantified (by which I mean, the percentage of warming due to mankind is unquantified). This means that the categories are, essentially, set up incorrectly in the first place. The only rejection category required would be one in which an abstract rejects humans as a cause of global warming entirely. This would have resulted in a higher consensus percentage, yet would be a consensus that the vast majority of sceptics would agree with anyway.
The consensus statistic as it stands, from this paper at least, is meaningless.

You can also cite Tol’s papers refuting Cook’s methodology.


Is this not a different argument than Tol’s?

Yes. That is why the comment said ‘also’.


Ha ha. Thanks for clarifying.


Sorry for the double post. Moderators, feel free to delete one. Thought the first one hadn’t post. Thanks.

The 97% consensus was based on a review of scientific abstracts. Basically, if the reviewers found a mention of climate change or global warming in the abstract, they were to conclude that the scientist believed that anthropogenic climate change was a problem.
By this logic, we should be able to review all of the papers which discuss the global warming hiatus and conclude that 97% of scientists believe the hiatus is real.
FYI — the consensus stated by John Cook, while lazy science, is nowhere near the consensus statement of the IPCC.

Bill Parsons

240 Published Papers In 2016 Alone…
Any of these skeptical researchers get any funds from NOAA? NSF? EPA? NIH? NASA?
How about the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Services?
Department of Energy? Department of Health and Human Services? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
Interior? Education?


Nah, I’m pretty sure all the funding comes from Exxon and the Koch brothers. Just ask Sheldon Whitehouse… /sarc


Andy Watts writes: “Kenneth Richard has compiled a list of 770 papers published since January 1, 2014 that contradict the IPCC consensus statement, see here.”
Correction. Kenneth Richard has compiled a list of 770 papers published since January 1, 2014 that discuss non-anthropogenic phenomena that influence climate, such as the sun, unforced variability, cosmic rays, etc. It would be interesting to know if the authors of ANY of these papers actually claim that their results contradict any “IPCC consensus statement” – whatever statement that refers to.
I hate it when alarmists claim that a 97% consensus exists – and then don’t specify precisely what there is a consensus about. Cook’s consensus simply asserts that anthropogenic GHGs are causing warming – an unspecified amount or fraction of warming. Without quantifying the amount of anthropogenic warming, it is impossible to know how much society should spend to avoid that warming. There isn’t a 97% consensus behind the statement that at least 50% of warming is attributable to man, and even that statement doesn’t have policy implications. The central estimate for ECS determined by energy balance models is 1.5-2.0 K/doubling. Those models assume that 100% of warming was due to anthropogenic factors. So even a consensus attributing 50% of warming to man has no significant policy implications.
So why are skeptics behaving the same way – claiming contradiction of an unspecified consensus position.
Personally, I’m interested in hearing about the few papers that have a dramatic impact on our understanding of climate sensitivity and the reliability of climate models. Nothing in the Holocene record suggests that non-anthropogenic phenomena are large enough to prevent serious warming if ECS is 3 K or higher.

Mark - Helsinki

Yes pretty much all warming is now attributed to man made influence. Lets not forget not only is all warming attributed, but we are still missing the attribution warming from the feedback effect, and atmospheric warming. Still it goes on, all kept alive by what I can only call unreliable proxy reconstructions, I don’t have faith in any reconstruction purely because the scientist in question always sets out with a goal of showing something, and torture the data to get a statistically significant result and uncertainty always seems to just go missing


Who is “Andy Watts”?
“From Friends of Science Newsletter by Albert Jacobs


One of the papers listed as refuting the “97%” consensus …..
Norwegian fjord sediments reveal NAO related winter temperature and precipitation changes of the past 2800 years
Johan C. Fausta, Karl Fabiana, Gesa Milzerc, Jacques Giraudeauc, Jochen Kniesa.
From the abstract ….
“……Long-term NAO records are crucial to better understand its response to climate forcing factors, and assess predictability and shifts associated with ongoing climate change. …..”
You tell me ??

Core samples from around the world confirm both the MWP and LIA. And not as the warmist claim that the warming was marginal during the MWP. The core samples also confirmed many smaller cycles. From the evidence, the MWP was warmer than the Current Warm Period.
Let’s remember that CAGW flatly denied that either of those events occured for a number of years until recently. They used the term term local, not world wide.
I can write a thesis on every single issue CAGW uses to prove AGW.
Which issue do you wish to talk about ? I like talking about the co2 record and TSI. It’s so interesting how many papers draw conclusions on the wrong TSI. Let’s start by tossing all those papers out.


One well known French climatist said on record that the medieval optimum is purely French. I don’t have the quote or even the name right now but I could look it up if needed.

Of course it’s purely French. That’s why the French started putting a tax on English wines during that time. Just look at how much wine is being produced now in England! I saw a very realiable global warming climate source that England will soon be growing orange and lemon trees. I would like to think the French climatist was being sarcastic.

Mark - Helsinki

The rest of the abstract.
A recent study of instrumental time series revealed NAO as main factor for a strong relation between winter temperature, precipitation and river discharge in central Norway over the past 50 years. Here we compare geochemical measurements with instrumental data and show that primary productivity recorded in central Norwegian fjord sediments is sensitive to NAO variability. This observation is used to calibrate paleoproductivity changes to a 500-year reconstruction of winter NAO (Luterbacher et al., 2001). Conditioned on a stationary relation between our climate proxy and the NAO we establish a first high resolution NAO proxy record (NAOTFJ) from marine sediments covering the past 2800 years. The NAOTFJ shows distinct co-variability with climate changes over Greenland, solar activity and Northern Hemisphere glacier dynamics as well as climatically associated paleo-demographic trends. The here presented climate record shows that fjord sediments provide crucial information for an improved understanding of the linkages between atmospheric circulation, solar and oceanic forcing factors.
“The NAOTFJ shows distinct co-variability with climate changes over Greenland, solar activity and Northern Hemisphere glacier dynamics as well as climatically associated paleo-demographic trends. The here presented climate record shows that fjord sediments provide crucial information for an improved understanding of the linkages between atmospheric circulation, solar and oceanic forcing factors.”
Solar activity is not climate modeled is it? IPCC say solar not important


“the past 2800 years”
“ongoing climate change. …..”

The Climate Science Newsletter from which this item is copied is at:
I write, send to our members via email, and post to the website every 10 to 12 days or so.
Our other newsletters; our Quarterly and FoS Extracts are at:


That list looks almost completely irrelevant. Most of the papers are discussing climate variability or looking at the past climate and do not discuss global warming. There are a couple that explicitly state that CO2 does not drive climate but rather it is due to geothermal effects (not something that I think is remotely feasible but I don’t know enough to offer a valid opinion) and these papers do not appear to be published in a peer reviewed journal. So there is nothing here that argues against the 97% consensus view especially as the list does not state how many other manuscripts have been published supporting CO2 based global warming

AGW is not Science

But then…
1. There IS NO “97% consensus view,” that is merely part of the unending propaganda trying to “sell” CAGW as “science.”
2. Even if there WAS a “97% consensus,” it wouldn’t mean a damn thing – the science is a house of cards, and “consensus” = POLITICS, NOT science.

Cat & Mouse

I’ve been trying to post this info on GreenPeace’s NZ facebook in relation to another post but funny enough each time I do they delete it. Their nothing more than a AGW propaganda machine these days and post all sorts of BS nonsense when scrutinize properly.
I’ve got all the time in the world to keep re posting until they give up so I let the games begin 🙂

here is a hilarious one
They Use Hoyt and Schatten TSI
Guess what?
Hoyt and Schatten say there old work is WRONG.
Let me repeat this.
IF your solar paper didnt use Leif’d data on sun spots… THEN
throw your paper in the garbage and start over.
Every last paper connecting solar with any aspect of the climate needs to be done over.
That is WHY…. people need to post their code and data.. makes recompiling the science so much easier
when a denizen of WUWT ( Leif) publishes a major finding.
recompile time solar nuts… your rug got pulled out from underneath you.

This one is SPECIAL
First. It is one the list
NEXT who ever did this list of papers JUST READ ABSTRACTS
It has been suggested that the Sun may evolve into a period of lower activity over the 21st century. This study examines the potential climate impacts of the onset of an extreme ‘Maunder Minimum like’ grand solar minimum using a comprehensive global climate model. Over the second half of the 21st century, the scenario assumes a decrease in total solar irradiance of 0.12% compared to a reference RCP8.5 experiment. The decrease in solar irradiance cools the stratopause (c. 1 hPa) in the annual and global mean by 1.4 K. The impact on global mean near-surface temperature is small (c. -0.1 K), but larger changes in regional climate occur during the stratospheric dynamically active seasons. In Northern hemisphere (NH) winter-time, there is a weakening of the stratospheric westerly jet by up to c. 3-4 m s1, with the largest changes occurring in January-February. This is accompanied by a deepening of the Aleutian low at the surface and an increase in blocking over northern Europe and the north Pacific. There is also an equatorward shift in the Southern hemisphere (SH) midlatitude eddy-driven jet in austral spring. The occurrence of an amplified regional response during winter and spring suggests a contribution froma top-down pathway for solar-climate coupling; this is tested using an experiment in which ultraviolet (200-320 nm) radiation is decreased in isolation of other changes. The results show that a large decline in solar activity over the 21st century could have important impacts on the stratosphere and regional surface climate.
– See more at:
“The key conclusions of the study for projections of global mean climate are as follows:
The change in global mean near-surface temperature over the second half of the 21st century is O(0.1 K), confirming the findings of earlier studies which have shown that a large decrease in solar activity would do little to offset the projected anthropogenic global warming trend [cf. Feulner and Rahmstorf, 2010, Jones et al., 2011, Meehl et al., 2013, Anet et al., 2013].”
in fact the paper SUPPORTS the work of RC author Ramesdorf
COME ON SKEPTICS.. read the paper.

Steve, what do you think a 2 w/m^2 decrease in TSI does to temperatures. It puts a lot of the models predicting warming into negative territory, and almost all the models negative from the beginning. There is no correlation between temperature and co2. The instrument error in TSI from the 2000’s is too large to ignore. Without that error, CAGW couldn’t have claimed anything at all. The difference is 8 to 10 w/m^2. That’s a 1 to 1.25 C drop.
They are talking about a 0.12% drop in TSI. They should pray that’s all there is.

My point?
1. the person who made this list just did a search on abstracts and didnt read the paper.
2. Cook and company did a bad job, and this gut did a worse job.
3. Folks do NOT make WUWT look good by reposting crap that took me 2 minutes to debunk.
Your point?
1. try to change the subject.
2. refuse to admit the poster made a mistake…
3. just “move on” to the next point…. Hey I thought Michael Mann patented that move. copy cat

@ Steven Mosher
July 13, 2016 at 2:27 pm
It sounds like someone has discovered a perpetual motion/energy machine. So if I put a layer of CO2 over my stove, I won’t have to turn the burner on to boil water since the CO2 layer will just make it hotter and hotter? The “Anthropogenic Global Warming Effect” will boil the oceans maybe? Who was it again who said that?
Somehow, I think the science is more complex than a simple CO2 control knob. There is a huge water based capacitor in the loop somewhere plus a big heat source.
Well maybe the sun/earth analogy is more like a heat lamp shining on someone in bed with no heat on in the house. The heat lamp will warm the body (plus the body has its own small internal heat engine). But the layer next to the body can cool by convection, conduction and radiation. Now put a blanket (clouds) over the body and it slows the heat losses and the body warms. The heat source(s) are the same. However, the blanket didn’t cause the warming, it only slowed the cooling. Now shut the lamp off for 12 hours and turn it on for 12 hours and watch the temperature lag with and without the blanket. Isn’t that why someone invented the thermos? Isn’t the earth just a giant variable capacitor/thermos?
Who has shown definitively that the last 50 years demonstrates Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming when there apparently were so many other warm periods? How do we know it isn’t natural variation when we have only had satellite data for 40 years+- out of 4 billion? Rate of change? Do we know prior rates of change? How good are the computer models – GIGO.
I think Crichton’s writings have as much value as many studies. State of Fear was entertaining and sort of foretold where we are though I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. More like a state of ignorance in spite of all the detailed analysis.
Bjorn Lomborg has it right. There really isn’t anything to worry about. Looks to me like everything is going to be alright in the end; and if it isn’t alright, it isn’t the end. 😉


Any reason for usingRCP8.5?

It assumes, that’s what RCP8.5 is . They don’t know. A 4 w/m^2 drop in TSI puts us in a very cold cooling trend. They assume 0.12% for the sake of AGW. Cooling would start at a 0.146% decrease in TSI, or about 2 w/m^2. The insulation from the earth’s orbit changes the TSI between 1360 to 1362. A decrease to 1358 to 1360 isn’t possible? Let’s assume a 0.29% change in TSI….. let’s compare that to the metrics using the TSI that was in error which was 1368 to 1370. A very convenient error.
” the scenario assumes ” …

RCP 8.5 gives you an upper bound.

The difference between guessing 0.12% and 0.15% is substantial when it comes to our closet star. RCP8.5 doesn’t establish anything. They have no basis even at 0.12%. And the decline based on instrument error is 0.73%. That’s 6 times that amount. Like I said, a very convenient error. And whoops they have a case of instant amnesia when it comes to remembering how they arrived at those numbers in the first place. Then go about as if nothing is wrong.
But then this has nothing to do with the topic about published papers. Which I’m sure I’ll be reminded of. How dare I refute a bogus claim about TSI in the middle of a paper discussion! Why I might be redirecting the conversation.
What else do I think about TSI? That in the not so distant past, I think the TSI declined 4.5%. It certainly wasn’t the co2. There wasn’t that much of to start with. And if you plug those co2 levels in the equation they don’t work. . What, the sun can’t do that?

Mark - Helsinki

This article is pure denial


It has always been a fantasy and will always be such until scientists register as scientists and vote on the matter. But science is not done that way. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not deemed true through some sort of voting process.

No scientist believes AGW is true because of the consensus. Its true because of physics.
However, when people who cannot understand the physics want to know “Is it true”
They can quite rationally ask the question “What do scientists think”
And the answer is simple.
Scientists who publish in the field.. know it’s true.

Bill Powers

So where is their proof of theory?


No it is false because of physics. The AGW conjecture is seriously flawed. There is evidence that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science


The point of the paper is that, although the TSI variation is negligibly small, variation in spectral composition has important effects. It is not that the sun has no effect on climate.

They are assuming a lot about TSI. It is interesting that a number like 0.12% was chosen. A further reduction of 0.0026% and you have definite cooling trend. I think the real rise in TSI has been about 0.15% since 1850. 3 hundreths of 100 %, who’s going to know ?
Just using CAGW numbers, the alleged warmth can be attributed to 2 things. First, the 0.12% rise in TSI since 1850, and second the instrument error that many of the papers base their conclusions on at 1368 to 1370 w/m^2. Just the slight rise from 1358 to 1360 takes us out of a cooling trend. It is interesting how they got all of their numbers to match in 2001 when there were errors. It’s also interesting how there models based on these errors showed warming from co2, when in fact with correct numbers there should have been cooling.


“The point of the paper is that, although the TSI variation is negligibly small, variation in spectral composition has important effects. It is not that the sun has no effect on climate.”
Yes it does.
However what it does NOT do is drive GW – which is the subject of this article/thread.
That is the point of me pointing that fact out up-thread under an article that supposes to list same under ones that refute “the 97% consensus”.
The consensus is that atmospheric increases of anthro derived CO2 is driving GW, and the papers herein listed pertain to investigating the natural variation of climate overlying that signal.
To boot anything that involves such a tiny variation in TSI that is present in a solar UV decrease ONLY causes regional climate change.

So, Toneb, we agree. There is not Global Climate Change, only local/regional climate change. Summing up all the :”Climate” change (temperatures) is, in a lot of ways, a meaningless statistical exercise. But, hey, without it, I would lose a few hours of entertainment every week. A gradual change in temperature isn’t a big deal, but don’t tell the lobster. ;-0


No we most certainly don’t agree.
Try reading what I wrote.
To boot see this recent article here….
To see yet another real world observation of a warming world.
I repeat – increased atmospheric CO2 is the agent of that. Other *stuff* happens as well within the climate. Surprisingly climate scientists know both of these things can and do happen simultaneously, and yes, can cause a “pause”. In the same way that an EN cause GMT’s to rise then so do a -ve PDO/LN’s cause GMT’s to lag.
No big deal in your/my lifetime perhaps … But then I’m not a selfish person.
Oh, and not keen on lobster.
Makes me fart.

What?! No papers on the Clean Air Act?

Kevin in NH

I am not sure what a 0.12% change in TSI will do but I can tell you that a 100% drop in TSI will turn the earth into an ice ball no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere mutes the effects of any changes in TSI as described well in the blanket analogy earlier.
I am sorry, but if the cause of ups and downs in temperature was CO2, the temperature would be rising in lockstep with CO2 levels, or even have a positive feedback that would cause accelerated rise. The pause contradicts this, as does the 1940-70 drop. So there are other factors at play, and the climate scientists do not know the answers, but they’ll say increasingly convoluted reasons to continue to get grant money all the while their models are constantly disproved by reality by increasingly humorous amounts.
I worked on the business side of academics for 10 years at a highly regarded research institution. Anyone who uses “peer review” as their basis for things being correct is a fool. It is a buddy system, I have witnessed it first hand among “top researchers” discussing this in the hallway outside my office. Basically it is “if you peer review and approve my paper, I’ll do the same for you, then we both win.” The top scientists will have the biggest buddy group with as many other top scientists in their field, and they always peer review each other’s work. That’s how they keep their jobs, become tenured professionals, and get lots of free trips to conferences that are always at nice resorts where they can go to the beach or play golf (there were never any conferences in North Dakota in February!). Very often there is no more science that goes into the peer review process than liking someone else’s Facebook post.


“I am not sure what a 0.12% change in TSI will do but I can tell you that a 100% drop in TSI will turn the earth into an ice ball no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.”
And every climate model agrees with you.

0.12% is an assumption not a fact. Too often in arguments that word assumption is conveniently left out and becomes is. From a different point of view, I can say that TSI variability is much higher and has a direct impact on climate. Sunspots numbers may be related or an indicator, but not necessarily. TSI variability may be dependent on several different factors. Some we may not be aware of. There is more proof that TSI varies that affects the climate than co2.

Brian Smith

Yes- I read the list. It’s ridiculous. Virtually none of the papers challenge the AGW meme.