Heartland Institute Tries to Influence K-12 Teachers… Journalist Calls for Them to Be Burned at the Stake!!!

Guest post by David Middleton

OK… My “burned at the stake” comment was mostly sarcastic hyperbole… But the author of this CSM article really deserves a heaping dose of sarcastic hyperbole.

Greentards

SCIENCE FIRST LOOK

How climate skeptics are trying to influence 200,000 science teachers

The Heartland Institute has mailed tens of thousands of public school teachers a book titled ‘Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,’ and has plans to mail copies to all 200,000 K-12 science teachers in the United States.

MARCH 30, 2017 If you’re a public school science teacher, you’ve got mail. Or if it hasn’t arrived yet, it’s on the way.

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets, has mailed 25,000 copies of its book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” and an accompanying explanatory DVD to science teachers across the United States. It plans to continue the campaign until all 200,000 K-12 science teachers in the country have a copy.

As the title hints, the organization hopes to convince science teachers that the science of global warming has yet to be settled.

[…]

For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change. The atmospheric carbon concentration is 44 percent higher than it was in pre-industrial times (and rising), and 2016 was the planet’s hottest year ever, breaking the previous record holders 2015 and 2014.

[…]

Christian Science Monitor

Assuming, Mr. Wood was citing the thoroughly debunked Cook et al., 2013, I clicked the “four authors” link and it led me to this psychobabble:

PowellTard

My first question was, “WTF is the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society?  As a geologist, I get the connection between science and technology, but the addition of “society” to science makes me think of the “kiddie” science courses for non-science majors.  So, I clicked the “About” link on the BSTS webpage and I was not disappointed:

The Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society provides communication within as wide of a spectrum of the STS community as possible, including faculty and students from sciences, engineering, the humanities, education, and behavioral and social sciences in the newly emerging groups on university and college campuses, and in high school systems, all of which teach integrative STS subject matters. It includes professionals in government, industry and universities, ranging from philosophers and historians of science to social scientists concerned with how science and technology affect the study and policy-making of their own craft. Yet a third category of readers represents “society”: journalists addressing the impacts of science and technology, public interest groups and the attentive public.

Material prepared for the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society can include original research articles or reflection on STS topics. We emphasize articles of general interest to those in STS fields, which can be used at different educational levels. Subjects include but are not limited to:

  • The place of science and technology in societies
  • Technology, science and policy
  • Technology assessment
  • Impact of technology upon human values and religious insights
  • The public understanding of technology and science
  • Professional Activities of individuals who are active in STS
  • Letters to the editor and responses of earlier printed articles
  • Book reviews, especially of core STS books

For general inquiries contact the editor, Jeffry Will, at jwill@unf.edu.

Theoretically, BSTS is a peer-reviewed journal… So, I returned to Mr. Powell’s “paper.”

Does the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) matter to society? President Obama evidently believes it does: In May 2013, he tweeted, “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.” In contrast, Senator Ted Cruz, chairing a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness in December 2015, dismissed the significance of the consensus by saying that, “In the year 1615 if you asked scientists, 97% of them would say the sun rotated around the Earth” (Atkin, 2015).

Though scientists in the 17th century did not practice the scientific method and believed any number of things that today we know to be false, Senator Cruz’s remark did contain a kernel of truth. Scientists have been wrong before, so how can we assess whether they are right today about AGW? Given the threat that global warming poses to future generations, possibly even to civilization itself, this is a vital question.

The claim of a 97% consensus derives from several peer-reviewed studies, but primarily from an article by Cook et al. (2013). If the claim were true, then since no climate scientist today could be without an opinion, 3% would reject AGW. Senator Cruz’s kernel of truth arises because even such a seemingly small percentage could weaken the case for action to prevent global warming. After all, were the majority always right, there would have been no scientific revolutions. Three examples from this century make the point. Until the 1960s, a tiny percentage of scientists believed that continents drifted; another tiny percentage that the impact of meteorites, rather than volcanic eruptions, had created lunar craters; and still another that carbon dioxide emissions would cause global warming. In each case, though it took 50 years or more, new evidence finally proved that the small minorities had been right and the majority wrong (Oreskes, 1999; Powell, 2015; Weart, 2008). Overthrow of the ruling paradigm is the way of science, as Thomas Kuhn (1962) asserted more than a 50 years ago.

If 3% of publishing scientists reject AGW, then if one read, say, 100 journal articles, on average 3 would reject the theory. But as I will show below, to find even a single rejection, one must read several thousand articles. Based on the peer-reviewed literature then, the consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%. The question is to find a method that can gauge it accurately.

Some studies have attempted to quantify the consensus by simply asking scientists their opinion. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) polled 10,257 geoscientists and received a 30.7% response rate. Overall, 90% of responders agreed that global temperatures have risen, while 82% agreed that the rise is mainly due to human activities. Of those judged most expert in climate science, 96.2% (77 of 79) agreed with the first statement and 97.4% (75 of 77) with the second.

[…]

My search found 24,210 articles by 69,406 authors. In my judgment, only five articles rejected AGW: Avakyan (2013a, 2013b), Gervais (2014), Happer (2014), and Hug (2013). These represent a proportion of 1 article in 4,842 or 0.021%. With regard to the authors, 4 reject AGW: 1 in 17,352 or 0.0058%. As explained, I interpret this to mean that 99.99% of publishing scientists accept AGW: virtual unanimity.

[…]

BSTS

So, Mr. Powell recounts the litany of second hand abstract opinion papers, particularly Cook’s cooked consensus and the terminally flawed Doran & Zimmerman survey.

To Cook’s credit, their paper at least had something resembling a rigorous procedure and they provided their ratings of the various papers in their supplemental material section.  Mr. Powell simply wrote, “In my judgment, only five articles rejected AGW.”  His supplemental material consists of a video.

Cook et al., 2013 actually found more papers that rejected or minimized AGW at some level of qualification than explicitly endorsed and quantified the so-called consensus.

kerry_01_zpsgdfkz0oa

How can someone endorse the claim that more than half of the warming is anthropogenic without a quantification?   This is an endorsement: More than half of the warming is due to AGW.  Anything less is not an endorsement.

Conversely, one does not need to quantify a rejection or minimization of this claim.  This is a rejection:  AGW is bunk.  This is a minimization: “Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change.”  Which is funny because Cook used the same quote as an example of “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.”

Cook’s two largest endorsement qualifications would include many of my WUWT posts and I categorically do not endorse the so-called consensus.

The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:

‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’

Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.

The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” This is the example Cook provided:

‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

They do.  So what?  I agree with the above example, but I do not agree that “emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes” are the primary driver of “global climate change.”

Why do these buffoons consistently resort to totally fictitious claim of a 97-99.99% consensus rather than just cite the recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society?  These surveys provide credible evidence that half to two-thirds of atmospheric scientists think that humans have been the cause of at least half of the warming over the past 50-150 years. Why isn’t this sufficient?

It’s not sufficient, because they need this sort of consensus to push their preferred polices:

maobama97_zps6ex3olxp

Unfortunately for Messrs. Wood, Powell and their ilk, the actual surveys of actual scientists do not support the claims of the former occupant of the White House.

The dishonest, underhanded, anti-science tactics of the Warmunists makes it more imperative than ever that groups like the Heartland Institute continue to fight back against the Warmunist propaganda.

Featured image source.

Addendum

This is “controversial” book in question:

why_scientists_-_front_cover-260

Click for PDF.

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “Heartland Institute Tries to Influence K-12 Teachers… Journalist Calls for Them to Be Burned at the Stake!!!

      • Perhaps what the k-12 group really need is a true lesson in science and reproducibility. To truly teach Climate Science, the students must attempt to reproduce the tests and results that have driven Climate Science to indicate that the world will come to a burning end if immediate and costly action isn’t taken. Once these students begin finding it impossible to reproduce even the simplest results, they will learn the Truth behind the Climate Science folly.

      • Bryan , I keep pushing for some brilliant Mr Wizard worthy YouTube experiments quantitatively demonstrating the laws of radiant heat transfer as a function of the spectra of object and sources , ie : demonstrating how to compute the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp .

        That would put an end to Hansen’s nonscience that Venus’s extreme surface temperature is due to some GHG phenomenon and all the alarmism which is fueled by that quantitative absurdity .

      • Thoroughly reprehensible. It’s not as though anyone on the left would ever try to infulence children or those who teach children. How low can they get ?

        /sarc

  1. Well David if it’s good enough for a Chicago politician it should be good enough for the rest of us. If that doesn’t float your boat what about the Nobel Prize Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC. How can you question that. Next you’ll claim that the UN is a gathering of agenda driven political hacks instead of an august body of the world’s good and great.

    Today the Oklahoma Bar Association announced an investigation into Scott Pruitts use of private email for government business. The Greens are bringing the kitchen sink. Supporting the Heartland Institute is a good way to counter that.

    • You can investigate anyone for anything. And that appears to be the tactic of those who lose the argument. But like the other investigations, there is no there there.

    • Jeff Sessions should announce that he is investigating the bar association and threaten to take away their ability to license lawyers in that state for engaging in political witch hunts.

  2. Not just related to this article but as a general point, I think both sides of the debate need to be very careful of falling into political behaviours characterised by:

    – selective use of data to support the answer wanted
    – rubbish the data if it does not give the preconceived answer
    – exaggerating the impact of trivial issues
    – failing to etc etc demonstrate a balance in their conclusions
    – etc etc

    On this forum we should seek to use consistently high standards of scientific argument, however tempting it may seem to do otherwise. Otherwise we simply become spin doctors trying to win an argument based on nothing more than rhetoric, not objective analysis.

    • When countering something that is nothing but spin, “high standards of scientific argument” aren’t very applicable.

      The closest I can get is in citing the results of actual surveys of Earth and atmospheric scientists.

      • Bingo. Counter science with science. Reasoned debate with reasoned debate. BS with contempt. Everyone gets back what they are putting out.

      • ‘Highest standards of scientific argument’ can be reduced to one statement: Most of what we believe today wil be found wanting by future generations. The absurdly ingorant idea that 17th century scientists did not practice science thoroughly confuses method with results. Then, as now, hypotheses were based on guesses; and then, (much) more than now, they were challenged by individuals outside the mainstream of opinion (compare Hooke versus Newton). Science’s body of knowledge needed and needs healthy doses of skepticism to remain healthy (as Cruz understands).

        There followed two centuries of the most creative science ever seen on the planet. Standards of living, life expectancy, health etc were all transformed, giving us the wonderful world we have now (with all its problems).

        It is a fragile and threatened world. The ignorant kidiot, who wrote this pathetically-ill-informed trash, horribly appears to be a standard bearer for the world to come, unless this past year does actually signal actual changes in outlook.

    • Terry Warner
      March 31, 2017 at 7:23 am

      “On this forum we should seek to use consistently high standards of scientific argument, however tempting it may seem to do otherwise.”

      YES.

      • To counter brainwashing takes persuasion.
        “(C)onsistently high standards of scientific argument” is fine and dandy, but may be likely to fall way short when it comes to being persuasive to Jocko Q. Anybody, who may have already been convinced of a lie by the most widespread disinformation campaign in the history of the world.

  3. There was a time when you couldn’t get a college degree without knowledge of the Greek logical fallacies. One is argumentum ad verecundiam or argument from authority. I leaned about these as a kid from a library book.

  4. I seriously do not think it is worthwhile to teach children about a 1C/century or thereabouts. Children really need to be more aware of the large temperature fluctuations within a day, and checking the weather to determine the correct attire.

      • True, parents are the first and primary teachers of their children. The efforts of parents who understand their role are easily noticed among today’s youth. As is likewise the failures of those who have abdicated their positions. As a rule I never left my children’s education at the mercy of ignorant teachers, but then I have the ability to correct the deficiencies.

    • A simple chart showing the much greater variations in temperature over the last few million years is sufficient to take most of the panic out of the global warming alarmists.

  5. Before Griff posts:
    Back to my favorite: Can Griff or any of those 40% or 99% provide us with ONE study that MEASURES the amount of heating by CO2 or any greenhouse gases?
    All that we have in those surveys is an OPINION or VOTE or CONSENSUS.
    So I wait now for the study……….

    • Funny thing.

      They say that they can’t replicate the modern warming without invoking a CO2-driven enhanced greenhouse effect:

      But, when they invoke a CO2-driven enhanced greenhouse effect, their models lack predictive skill:

      • But they do not know what the natural factors were that took the temperature anomaly from – 0.6degC in 1910 to + 0.7 deg C in about 1943/4. That is an increase of about 1.3degC

        Since they do not know what natural factors were in play during that period, how can they rule out the same or other natural factors as the driver of the temperature increase from – 0.1deg C in 1960 to + 1.3degC in 1998.

        The increase in the temperature anomaly is about the same during both periods.

        Until such time that we fully know and understand natural variation, there is no prospect that we can determine future climate trends.

      • “But they do not know what the natural factors were that took the temperature anomaly from – 0.6degC in 1910 to + 0.7 deg C in about 1943/4. That is an increase of about 1.3degC.

        Since they do not know what natural factors were in play during that period, how can they rule out the same or other natural factors as the driver of the temperature increase from – 0.1deg C in 1960 to + 1.3degC in 1998.”

        The answer is: They can’t rule out natural factors as the driver of recent temperature increases. The range of increase is the same, while one took place under circumstances of minimal atmospheric CO2, and the other took place with much higher and increasing atmospheric CO2.

      • It’s not really possible to say how the EPA created the top graph, but what it looks like is this:

        They plotted the “observations” (presumably post-adjustment, post-homogenization) then they plotted the CMIP5 models (i.e. “human factors”), which of course started to get warmer than the observations, so they reverse-engineer a “natural factors” graph which is the difference between the two.

        Substituting “models” for “human influences”, it becomes basic algebra;

        obs = mod + nat
        therefore nat = obs-mod
        where obs is “known”, mod is “known” and solve it for the unknown “nat”

        Can’t prove it, but it is the sort of thing that people who regard model output as real data, would do.

        It’s also the sort of thing cynical manipulators would do, who don’t give a rodent’s rectum about truth or objectivity.

        They use °F to make the numbers bigger, and the chart stops at 2005 (but it’s dated July 2016!!), presumably because if they took it further towards the present, the calculated natural factors would go so far into negative territory that it might look suspicious, even to a warmist.

        If this analysis is right, it’s a terrible indictment of the EPA.

      • It’s a derivation of a model from one of the IPCC assessment reports. It’s pretty simple. If you assume “x” climate sensitivity to CO2 and then subtract the CO2, you get that result. It’s 100% GIGO.

  6. The greatest crime in this the whole mess is the teaching of children that they are a scourge on the planet.
    This is reason that the some of us liken the Climatariat the the medieval Church.

    • Somewhere along the line, the original and sensible message, “Be a good steward of the Earth” jumped the shark to extreme Malthusianism. Probably because the professors certifying teachers are remnants of the Birkenstock band of 60’s radicals who drank their own LSD-laced Kook Aid. It’s up to US to teach our children the right science AND the right attitude–one of QUESTIONING arguments from authority.

  7. Are those 70,000 papers proving AGW or are they describing what will happen to specified organisms/environments if there is X degrees increase in temperature? If former then there is a point is using them. If the latter then they should be ignored for this purpose. Only papers that prove AGW should be used in this type of argument.

    • Speaking from my ancient memory, I’d say most of those 70,000 papers studied “something” that justified a grant. To get the grant, the “scientists” had to use the Mann-approved climate model output as the basis for their research. Therefore, this could be interpreted as endorsing AGW.

      It’s obvious that scientists who question, or consider questioning, the consensus put their careers and chance of getting grants in great jeopardy — along with being thrown out ot the climate scientist club. Ask Drs. Curry, Lindzen, Ball, etc., etc.

  8. TallDave says: March 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    Any time someone brings up Cook or Powell or Lewandosky or Connelley’s consensus nonsense, show them this: 1350 peer-reviewed papers questioning/criticizing AGW.

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

    ———

    This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:

    Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:

    “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
    “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
    “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
    “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

    “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”

    IOW, 59% (ten years ago) doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW.
    ————-

    by José Duarte
    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/the-climate-science-consensus-is-78-84-percent
    The climate science consensus is 78 – 84 percent (Updated)
    5/30/2015
    10 Comments
     
    I think I’ve been negligent in not making the actual climate science consensus known to people. In one of my projects it occurred to me that no one has made the information readily available, at least not to my knowledge. I’ll save the details for the journal article, but I think a quick snapshot of the consensus might be helpful.

    First, there is no 97%.

    There is not a single survey of climate scientists that reports 97% agreement with the proposition that most of the observed warming was caused by human activity.

    There are three recent and high quality studies that surveyed climate scientists on this question or its semantic equivalent. The scholars who performed this work are qualified, competent survey researchers, and in one case the study was published in an esteemed international journal of survey research. Here are the results:

    84%*
    81%
    78%

    The researchers, respectively:

    Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, S. R. (2012). The structure of scientific opinion on climate change. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(1), 93-103. Link

    Bray and von Storch. “A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013.” Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht. (2014). Link

    Stenhouse, Neil, et al. “Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95.7 (2014): 1029-1040. Link

    NOTE: I am not aware of any other studies published in the last five years that satisfy the requirements here – direct survey of climate scientists on the key attribution question. Other studies are either not direct surveys, do not restrict their samples to climate scientists, or do not ask whether humans are responsible for most of the warming. (There are earlier versions of the Bray and von Storch and Stenhouse et al. studies – I report the most recent surveys.) For example, Doran and Zimmerman, Anderegg et al., and Verheggen et al. do not satisfy the criteria. For more on the Verheggen study, see my paper in Environmental Science & Technology.

    * It may be more accurate to say 78-81%, since Farnsworth and Lichter ask a more ambiguous question – whether “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring”, not explicitly whether most of the warming is human-caused. The explicit surveys give us 78-81%.

    The 97% meme is scam that will likely be a formal topic of study for future historians and other scholars. It arose chiefly from a fraudulent and invalid study – Cook et al (2013). This was not a survey of climate scientists, but rather a study where a team of activists read academic paper abstracts and decided what they mean. Setting aside for a moment the fraud that was later revealed, the study was based on a faulty search of broad academic literature using casual English terms like “global warming”, which missed lots of climate science papers but included lots of non-climate-science papers that mentioned climate change – social science papers, surveys of the general public, surveys of cooking stove use, the economics of a carbon tax, and scientific papers from non-climate science fields that studied impacts and mitigation. The team seemed to have no idea how to search scientific literature and unfamiliar with meta-analysis techniques**.

    The team of activists wanted to deliver a high consensus figure to advance their political cause – an impossible conflict of interest. The paper includes repeated lies about their methods, and there are no valid findings from the study. No estimate of a consensus can be computed from their data by any method known to science. The journal editor who published and promoted the paper is Obama advisor and campaign donor Daniel Kammen, which created a massive conflict of interest when the fraud was disclosed to him and the journal – Obama had already famously cited and promoted the false finding, as it served his policy priorities. Kammen and the journal have done nothing to manage that conflict of interest, and have yet to retract the paper.

    Both scientists and the media have almost exclusively cited the junk studies conducted by unqualified political people like Cook and Oreskes, rather than qualified researchers. The junk studies generated the higher estimates, which is probably why they were cited more. The valid scientific studies, performed by trained researchers, have largely been ignored. This hints at a larger problem, may be an example of something like Gresham’s Law, and will be more thoroughly explored in peer-reviewed literature.

    Tips for being a good science consumer and science writer. When you see an estimate of the climate science consensus:

    Make sure it’s a direct survey of climate scientists. Climate scientists have full speech faculties and reading comprehension. Anyone wishing to know their views can fruitfully ask them. Also, be alert to the inclusion of people outside of climate science.
    Make sure that the researchers are actual, qualified professionals. You would think you could take this for granted in a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, but sadly this is simply not the case when it comes to climate consensus research. They’ll publish anything with high estimates.
    Be wary of researchers who are political activists. Their conflicts of interest will be at least as strong as that of an oil company that had produced a consensus study – moral and ideological identity is incredibly powerful, and is often a larger concern than money.
    In general, do not trust methods that rest on intermediaries or interpreters, like people reviewing the climate science literature. Thus far, such work has been dominated by untrained amateurs motivated by political agendas.
    Be mindful of the exact questions asked. The wording of a survey is everything.
    Be cautious about papers published in climate science journals, or really in any journal that is not a survey research journal. Our experience with the ERL fraud illustrated that climate science journals may not be able to properly review consensus studies, since the methods (surveys or subjective coding of text) are outside their domains of expertise. The risk of junk science is even greater if the journal is run by political interests and is motivated to publish inflated estimates. For example, I would advise strong skepticism of anything published by Environmental Research Letters on the consensus – they’re run by political people like Kammen.

    Outlets like Chris Mooney, Scientific American, DeSmogBlog, ClimateWire, and the misnamed ScienceBlogs site are not alert to fraud and junk science if it promotes their political agenda. Channeling von Clausewitz, for those people science is just politics by other means. They’ll cite and promote this stuff, and they won’t cite actual scientific research – they’ve not reported the professional surveys above. None of them have yet retracted or corrected their promotion of the Cook fraud. When media and science writers start reporting the Cook fraud, outlets like Mooney and SciAm will probably be the very last to acknowledge the fraud, if ever. Our civilization is not in good shape in terms of how we manage the effects of politics on science, but we’ll get better.

  9. by José Duarte
    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/the-climate-science-consensus-is-78-84-percent
    The climate science consensus is 78 – 84 percent (Updated)
    5/30/2015
    10 Comments
     
    I think I’ve been negligent in not making the actual climate science consensus known to people. In one of my projects it occurred to me that no one has made the information readily available, at least not to my knowledge. I’ll save the details for the journal article, but I think a quick snapshot of the consensus might be helpful.

    First, there is no 97%.

    There is not a single survey of climate scientists that reports 97% agreement with the proposition that most of the observed warming was caused by human activity.

    There are three recent and high quality studies that surveyed climate scientists on this question or its semantic equivalent. The scholars who performed this work are qualified, competent survey researchers, and in one case the study was published in an esteemed international journal of survey research. Here are the results:

    84%*
    81%
    78%

    The researchers, respectively:

    Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, S. R. (2012). The structure of scientific opinion on climate change. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(1), 93-103. Link

    Bray and von Storch. “A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013.” Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht. (2014). Link

    Stenhouse, Neil, et al. “Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95.7 (2014): 1029-1040. Link

    NOTE: I am not aware of any other studies published in the last five years that satisfy the requirements here – direct survey of climate scientists on the key attribution question. Other studies are either not direct surveys, do not restrict their samples to climate scientists, or do not ask whether humans are responsible for most of the warming. (There are earlier versions of the Bray and von Storch and Stenhouse et al. studies – I report the most recent surveys.) For example, Doran and Zimmerman, Anderegg et al., and Verheggen et al. do not satisfy the criteria. For more on the Verheggen study, see my paper in Environmental Science & Technology.

    * It may be more accurate to say 78-81%, since Farnsworth and Lichter ask a more ambiguous question – whether “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring”, not explicitly whether most of the warming is human-caused. The explicit surveys give us 78-81%.

    The 97% meme is scam that will likely be a formal topic of study for future historians and other scholars. It arose chiefly from a fraudulent and invalid study – Cook et al (2013). This was not a survey of climate scientists, but rather a study where a team of activists read academic paper abstracts and decided what they mean. Setting aside for a moment the fraud that was later revealed, the study was based on a faulty search of broad academic literature using casual English terms like “global warming”, which missed lots of climate science papers but included lots of non-climate-science papers that mentioned climate change – social science papers, surveys of the general public, surveys of cooking stove use, the economics of a carbon tax, and scientific papers from non-climate science fields that studied impacts and mitigation. The team seemed to have no idea how to search scientific literature and unfamiliar with meta-analysis techniques**.

    The team of activists wanted to deliver a high consensus figure to advance their political cause – an impossible conflict of interest. The paper includes repeated lies about their methods, and there are no valid findings from the study. No estimate of a consensus can be computed from their data by any method known to science. The journal editor who published and promoted the paper is Obama advisor and campaign donor Daniel Kammen, which created a massive conflict of interest when the fraud was disclosed to him and the journal – Obama had already famously cited and promoted the false finding, as it served his policy priorities. Kammen and the journal have done nothing to manage that conflict of interest, and have yet to retract the paper.

    Both scientists and the media have almost exclusively cited the junk studies conducted by unqualified political people like Cook and Oreskes, rather than qualified researchers. The junk studies generated the higher estimates, which is probably why they were cited more. The valid scientific studies, performed by trained researchers, have largely been ignored. This hints at a larger problem, may be an example of something like Gresham’s Law, and will be more thoroughly explored in peer-reviewed literature.

    Tips for being a good science consumer and science writer. When you see an estimate of the climate science consensus:

    Make sure it’s a direct survey of climate scientists. Climate scientists have full speech faculties and reading comprehension. Anyone wishing to know their views can fruitfully ask them. Also, be alert to the inclusion of people outside of climate science.
    Make sure that the researchers are actual, qualified professionals. You would think you could take this for granted in a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, but sadly this is simply not the case when it comes to climate consensus research. They’ll publish anything with high estimates.
    Be wary of researchers who are political activists. Their conflicts of interest will be at least as strong as that of an oil company that had produced a consensus study – moral and ideological identity is incredibly powerful, and is often a larger concern than money.
    In general, do not trust methods that rest on intermediaries or interpreters, like people reviewing the climate science literature. Thus far, such work has been dominated by untrained amateurs motivated by political agendas.
    Be mindful of the exact questions asked. The wording of a survey is everything.
    Be cautious about papers published in climate science journals, or really in any journal that is not a survey research journal. Our experience with the ERL fraud illustrated that climate science journals may not be able to properly review consensus studies, since the methods (surveys or subjective coding of text) are outside their domains of expertise. The risk of junk science is even greater if the journal is run by political interests and is motivated to publish inflated estimates. For example, I would advise strong skepticism of anything published by Environmental Research Letters on the consensus – they’re run by political people like Kammen.

    Outlets like Chris Mooney, Scientific American, DeSmogBlog, ClimateWire, and the misnamed ScienceBlogs site are not alert to fraud and junk science if it promotes their political agenda. Channeling von Clausewitz, for those people science is just politics by other means. They’ll cite and promote this stuff, and they won’t cite actual scientific research – they’ve not reported the professional surveys above. None of them have yet retracted or corrected their promotion of the Cook fraud. When media and science writers start reporting the Cook fraud, outlets like Mooney and SciAm will probably be the very last to acknowledge the fraud, if ever. Our civilization is not in good shape in terms of how we manage the effects of politics on science, but we’ll get better.

    • Regardless of the numbers, these are opinions.
      Opinions are not science.
      And consensus is not how matters of science are verified.
      In politics, consensus matters.
      In science…not so much.
      And that was true even before it became a practical matter of earning a living vs. being basically blackballed from your chosen field of endeavor, to have a certain opinion.

      • Regardless of “opinions are not science,” pointing out the exaggeration of the 97%-consensus claim is worth doing, because it means that there is widespread dishonesty in the alarmist side, and and that its assertions must not be taken on trust, the way most people do.

      • I agree, and I think that is where the conversation should start.
        Although I think it is more along the lines of a flat out lie than an exaggeration.
        It is likely very unpersuasive to try to counter such over the top hyperbole with a more balanced approach, and least on the front end.
        I think it is important to call a lie a lie, and to call fake news fake news.
        This is the sort of talk that gets peoples attention these days.

        But…understand, as well, that I make a distinction about what methods and arguments to use depending on the audience, at least to some degree.
        On this site we have almost exclusively people who are very informed about the issue, and have been following it for years.
        For the warmistas who visit here, anything said is wasted breathe (or keystrokes), but they must be countered if only for the sake of newcomers and lurkers who may not be so well informed.

        But when discussing such matters in other social media platforms, like Facebook, or on the comments section of various websites…I think a direct approach is called for…just call a lie a lie…fake news.
        If anyone disputes that, that is the time to go into detail.
        I would add that if anyone has devised a method to persuade someone who believes the CAGW meme but has no knowledge of the science, I would love to hear it.
        In my experience, it is like most discussions of a political nature…no one ever changes their mind.
        Not 100% true all the time, but true enough for the sake of discussion.

  10. Of course, it doesn’t matter if it’s “97% of climatologists agree…” or “67% of AMS members agree…”. Science is about facts not opinion polls. We keep getting suckered into arguing Doran and Zimmerman or Cook et al, when our *real* argument is that consensus is for politics and not science. Also, that science is NEVER settled. Any one who says so is just trying to close down debate.

    • It’s important because the bogus claim of 97% lock-step consensus is an effort to shut down the debate.

      Based on the two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al., 2012 and 2016), it appears to me that atmospheric scientists are also open to debate…

      bams_2012_8_9

      53% of AMS members agreed that there disagreement among the membership on the issue of global warming. 62% thought that the disagreement was productive to some degree. Source Maibach et al., 2012

      The 2012 survey found that 52% of survey respondents thought that humans were the primary drivers of global warming over the previous 150 years, a bare majority.  The 2016 survey focused on the most recent 50 years and it only found a 67% majority that humans were the primary drivers of climate change over the most recent 50 years.  While a solid majority, it is far short of a “consensus.”  More revealing was the widespread disagreement about whether or not recent climate changes have been beneficial or harmful and the degree to which future climate changes can be averted…

      bams_2016_03

      Only 38% of respondents thought the impacts they had observed to be more harmful than beneficial. Source Maibach et al., 2016

      bams_2016_04

      “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” —Larry “Yogi” Berra.  Only half of survey respondents predicted that the future impacts in their neighborhoods would have a net harmful effect. Source: Maibach et al., 2016

      bams_2016_05

      Is 18% confidence that at least “a large amount of additional climate change can be averted,” adequate justification for something with a price tag in the neighborhood of $44 trillion? Source: Maibach et al., 2016

      Based on Maibach et al., 2012 and 2016, it appears to me that a great deal of debate “about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind” remains to be had.

      • Yes, I know. I read the original Mailbach et al (2016) and even participated in the survey. (I’m a 5%!) I just feel we keep banging our head against the wall on this, when the %ages DON’T MATTER. It is a logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority”. We ought to be saying opinion polls don’t matter, that’s not how science is done.
        But I fear we are doomed to a Sisyphusian task of knocking down the same meme over and over.

      • The problem is that the average person doesn’t grasp the concept of logical fallacies.

        Dismissing their lies about a 97% consensus as appeals to authority and consensus have little to no effect. I even think that the definition of appeal to authority has changed. In my college philosophy class, we were taught that “authority” carried no weight in an argument. Today, many of the definitions carve out an exemption for people of “genuine” authority, because most people can’t understand basic science.

        The Mailbach surveys clearly show that the atmospheric science community is very divided on the causes, effects and mitigation possibilities regarding climate change. This conclusively destroys the 97% consensus and reinforces the positions of EPA Administrator Pruitt and the Heartland Foundation.

      • The problem is in trying to debate with non-scientists.
        I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been told that nothing I have to say can have any merit since 97% of the scientists already agree.
        In their minds this so called consensus justifies shutting down all conversation on the subject and a complete refusal to examine counter evidence.

      • Having followed this controversy for several years I am beginning to think the claimed consensus exists only in a small group and a true analysis of scientific opinions would show them to be in a distinct minority. If the question to each scientist was ” Can you show clear evidence that human emissions of CO2 are causing damaging climate change?” I think the yeses would be very sparse. If another question was “Do you expect the mean of the climate models to accurately predict global temperature within 0.2 deg C. at the end of this century(decade)?” you would get more “that depends” than “definitely”. So My conclusion is the consensus is about as much contrived as the eminent danger their side is promoting.
        As for articles supporting skeptical viewpoints there are literally hundreds as pointed out so well at No Tricks Zone but they seem to be missed by Cook and others when doing their analysis.

      • David Middleton: Yes!! Finally someone else who noticed the redefining of a term! I have had repeated discussions concerning the rewrite of the “Argument from Authority”. I have even searched for its source, though to date I have not found where it started. It’s good to see I am not the only one who noticed!

        I generally avoid explaining “argument from authority” and the fallacy, but rather state that science is not decided by vote and ONLY the data matters, not who is speaking. It is difficult since people are trained they don’t understand anything (my mother was like that—it’s not new). I explain that science is not as complex as presented and that unless the scientist can clearly and openly explain, one should be suspicious of the motives of the speaker and the accuracy of the science.

      • “The 2012 survey found that 52% of survey respondents thought that humans were the primary drivers of global warming over the previous 150 years, a bare majority. The 2016 survey focused on the most recent 50 years and it only found a 67% majority that humans were the primary drivers of climate change over the most recent 50 years. While a solid majority, it is far short of a “consensus.” More revealing was the widespread disagreement about whether or not recent climate changes have been beneficial or harmful and the degree to which future climate changes can be averted…”

        I find this completely ridiculous. There is NO evidence that humans are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up. There is NO evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.

        There is scientific theory that CO2 will theoretically heat up the atmosphere, and this is ALL these scientists are hanging their hat on. Nothing more than that. And a bogus, bastardized hockey stick chart to point to.

        So, these scientists/meterologists are basing their opinion on an unproven theory. They cannot point to one piece of evidence showing a human fingerprint on temperature or climate changes in Earth’s atmosphere because of increased CO2, yet they assert it is happening. It must be because that’s what the theory and Michael Mann say.

        Me, I’ll wait until I see proof before I say it’s happening.

        You supporters of AGW/CAGW could prove me wrong by providing a little bit of proof. I feel confident in saying that none will be produced because there is none. So you are welcome to your opinion, but you need facts if you want to convince me, and you don’t have any facts. You have opinons only.

      • The surveys are what they are. The so-called greenhouse effect is basic physics. None of which provides evidence that humans are the primary driver of recent climate change.

        And it would take an extreme level of cluelessness to confuse me with an AGW advocate.

      • “And it would take an extreme level of cluelessness to confuse me with an AGW advocate.”

        You are correct, and I don’t. None of my criticism was directed at you. Your position is pretty much my position.

      • These days, i think you just have to be direct and to the point in discussions with people who seemed to be swayed by the fake opinion polls.
        You have to state very simply that it is fake news.
        Because it is.
        The 97% number started out fake, has always been fake, and always will be…completely fake news.

      • DMA, you make a very good point.
        It is a well known truism of polling in general that the result you get is determined by exactly how the questions are phrased.
        People will answer what is in essence the same question in completely different ways based on the specific language used, the lead in, the subtext of the question, etc.
        And these same answers can even be influenced by what is on the mind of the person being questioned…a prior conversation, or article read, or even previous questions asked has been shown to alter how people will answer questions, and often dramatically so.
        And then there is the whole question of if people are really and truly answering based on their innermost beliefs and thoughts.
        Often people will not, for a variety of reasons.
        We saw this demonstrated to great affect last November 8th.

      • Ever since I began reading Scott Adams’ blog I believe I am able to understand why it is so hard to change peoples’ minds about something they already believe to be so.
        It all comes down to persuasion, and people are much more likely to be persuaded by emotional arguments than by logical ones.
        On top of that, once someone has an idea fixed in their head, their brain will resist efforts alter this worldview, even to the point of having actual hallucinations about what they are seeing and hearing.
        What happens is that people go into a state of cognitive dissonance, and at that point logic and facts matter for very little. New information that conflicts with their preset worldview is rejected by the brain without the person even being aware of it, or so it seems.
        It is really very interesting, if you have never heard of this.
        It explains a lot, and examples abound…it can be seen happening everyday right in front of our eyes.

  11. BTW, PBS’s Frontline also did a hit piece on the Hearland’s campaign.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share_button
    My favorite bit is at the end:
    “Correction: An earlier version of this story mistakenly said that a 2012 Heartland strategy document was leaked to the press. Rather, the document was acquired from Heartland under false pretenses before being publicly released.”
    What’s a little wire fraud between friends?

    Nobody on the left side has ever complained when flawed pro-CAGW materials are supplied to teachers. But offer them something that says science is an on-going process, and it’s a horror show.

    • PBS’s Frontline:
      “Rather, the [strategy] document was acquired from Heartland under false pretenses before being publicly released.”

      But that document wasn’t “acquired from Heartland”; it was forged. That was sloppy/biased of Frontline to make that flub.

      • Yes, the were fudging there. Most of the documents were real, but stolen under false pretense. One was forged by Peter Gleich. But a crimes a crime for a’ that.

  12. Perhaps the BSTS could be sent the analysis of Cook et al done by Chris Monckton. And perhaps they could also be prevailed upon to google helicobactor – and see how a scientific consensus, in delaying its discovery, caused many untimely deaths.

    • Or the peer reviewed ones by Legates et al . or the one by Tol, or the review paper by Friends of Science that discusses all the consensus papers and shows their manifold flaws.

  13. For a when pigs fly opportunity for teachers who actually want to teach their students, the controversy over climate change would give examples of basic logic and argument, a multiplicity of fallacies, and the nature of science as differentiated from politics and religion. Given enough genetic engineering, pigs can fly, and organized teachers, given enough of an opportunity, can actually want to teach.

  14. re author James Powell: Here’s what I wrote about his own survey paper, almost four years ago, and probably posted here as a comment:
    ————–

    Here are my comments on a survey by James Powell, posted online in various sites last year (2011?), of 13,950 papers dealing with climate change. It analyzed their abstracts and “found” that only 24 rejected manmade global warming. I posted the following critical comments on the site below (not the main place it was posted). I suspect it was this survey that inspired what Cook is up to now (5/2013):
    http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Contrary-to-Popular-Belief-Scientists-are-United-on-Climate-Change.html

    The article states:

    “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.”

    How many papers that “explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false” would get by peer review with that phrase intact? How many would even be submitted to peer review if they included that phrase? They therefore tend to be more circumspect and merely cite a discrepancy, some flaw (minor perhaps only in the author of this article’s opinion), etc.

    Here’s a link to 1100+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptical arguments critical of ACC/AGW alarmism:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    ========

    The article states:
    “Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, . . . .”

    Strawman. The claim is not that skeptics are 100% “prevented” from being published, but that that it is difficult (and hence rare) to get them published, or to get them published without being watered down, as I hinted above.

    ==========

    The article states:
    “If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”
    AND:
    “A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.”

    IOW, an article will be classified as skeptical only if it presents hard evidence. BUT an article will be counted accepting/endorsing even if it presents no hard evidence, but merely implicit opinion:

    “Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

    Denial must be explicit, but acceptance may be implicit. This double standard biases the results of this article. By how much is unknown. For that, the author should have indicated how many fall into the “implicitly accepting” category.

    ==========

    The article states:
    “If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”

    But the weakness of the warmist case isn’t in the “hard evidence” so much as in the inferences drawn from that evidence, the selectivity applied in deciding which evidence is the most relevant, the inferences drawn from those relevant bits of evidence, the assumptions made, etc. It is at those matters where the main thrust of skepticism has been directed.

    But journals want to publish “findings.” This biases them against publishing wide-ranging, argumentative critiques. (To be fair, they rarely publish similar argumentative essays from the warmist side either.) They have a just-the-facts attitude. But the facts don’t speak for themselves. Argumentation has therefore moved to other venues.

    What’s needed is an online venue where viewpoints can be argued among credentialed scientists, with the peanut gallery roped off into a separate section where their comments won’t disrupt the discussion, but can be drawn upon by the participants if desired. (Seen but not heard, IOW.) This is what has finally gotten underway with the establishment this month of the Climate Dialogue site, at http://www.climatedialogue.org/

    ==========

    The article concludes:
    “Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.”

    So what? (Irrelevant thesis.) Skeptics don’t deny that. What they deny is that this warming will continue at its current pace; that it would be very harmful if it did so—or even harmful on balance at all; and that there are amplifying factors that will accelerate the current trend. The alarmists’ case rests on the assumptions of strong positive feedbacks and the absence or weakness of negative feedbacks. That’s where their case is weakest.

    The article states:
    “By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.”
    [i.e., at http://jamespowell.org/styled/index.html ]

    Hmm . . . There’s nothing in that list by the following skeptical scientists, at least half of whom have presumably published papers properly classified as skeptical:

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Claude Allègre, John Christy, David Douglass, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, Richard Lindzen, Nils-Axel Mörner, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer.

    I took their names from Wikipedia’s “List of [35] scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Here are four other names, half of whom I presume wrote articles that were missed: Zbigniew Jaworowski, Augusto Mangini, Nathan Paldor, and Richard Tol.

  15. What a great democracy we have. You no longer need to know anything to declare yourself a scientist. The age of diversity has arrived!

  16. What are the supposed and quatified negative consequences of global warming?

    Having the Great Lakes now? More usable acreage for crop growth and higher yields? What is the issue that is bantered about in such an amorphous manner?

  17. It is significant that the media (CSM in this case) uses the word “influence” to characterize the Heartland Institute’s program to distribute a book to 200,000 K-12 teachers. The notion that the teachers could read the book and then process the information to come to their own conclusions, which is what we would desire for our children who are presumably taught by these teachers, is foreign to much of what passes for higher education in America. The six or seven years our college students currently endure at great expense is largely an indoctrination that leaves a large portion of them poorly prepared for independent thinking. Even simple things like learning how to divide fractions by fractions are a mystery to many of these graduates, as discussed by Dr. Liping Ma in “Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics”. This is not a reflection on the students’ innate capacity to learn these things, but it tells us much about what goes on within those ivory towers. And the colleges seem to be proud of this, making a great deal out of their willingness to censor speech and to provide their little snowflakes with safe spaces where nothing can intrude on their false sense of security. It takes a village, and that village must toe the line on the party’s dogma. Consensus is reality within those ivy walls. To the products of this system, everything is relative and “influence” is the goal, irrespective of the manner in which it is achieved. So a book arguing with facts and logic is indistinguishable from an envelope stuffed with cash containing voting instructions for the recipient, or rioters that drive conservative speakers from the podium.

    • This article appeared in what, the Christian Science Monitor? Are these not the people willing to die in lieu of accepting a blood transfusion, who think they can pray their way out of cancer? ‘Nuff said!

      • I don’t believe many or any of the editorial staff nor reporters at CSM are Christian Science. Haven’t been for quite some time (not since the last Christian Science Reading Room closed.) They are all, however, all proud card-carrying members of the Mainstream Media. So their beliefs are loonier than Mary Baker Eddie’s.

      • I was going to mention this as well. As Mumbles mentions below, this doesn’t mean that everyone who works there is of the same belief system, but the hypocrisy of a journal from a group that practises pseudo-science publishes such crap is par for the course.

        Much like everyone I know who considers themselves “green” and believes that everything about climate change will be apocalyptic if we don’t shut our lights off for Earth Hour: they inevitably believe in chiropractic, Traditional Chinese Medicine, astrology, auras, gi, etc.

        “Science” as they see it is only for bashing their enemies. They certainly don’t have to actually believe it.

      • Caligula Jones,
        I know exactly what you are talking about…I see the same thing myself.
        But recently I have noticed some chinks in the armor of their beliefs: What science has to say about topics such as vaccines, GMOs, and for some odd reason, Roundup herbicide, or glyphosate in general. To name the first three I can think of…there are others.
        On these subjects, the same people who purport to respect the views of so-called mainstream science, and mock anyone who disputes or even questions CAGW in any way, will go flat-out tinfoil hat-wearing, they-want-to kill-us-all-by-slow-poison government conspiracy on you.
        It is astounding really…they same people who in one breathe will damn your eyes for “disbelieving science” will breathlessly explain to you how evil and cause-corrupted and just plain wrong scientists working in these other fields can be.
        But it never occurs to them to consider the paradox in their thinking or argumentation…glyphosate is obviously poison…everyone knows it and if you do not you must be in on it. GMOs will be the death of us all. Vaccines are a lunatic government plot.
        People with such beliefs are not informed or guided by science, but by belief…by worldview.
        They have no problem whatsoever understanding that profit motivates people, no matter who the people are, but will not make the connection to the massive government spending in climate science and what happens to anyone who voices a contrary view.
        It seems to me that it is no coincidence that most (but certainly not all) warmistas are on the left, politically.
        Being logical and consistent carries no weight on that side of the aisle.
        Monsanto bad. Oil companies bad. Chemicals bad. Large corporations making large profits bad. Government good.
        Unless they want to force everyone to get a vaccine…then government bad…very bad.
        Unless the corporation is the one that made the phone in their pocket, which makes the most profit of any company…then who cares.
        Unless the chemicals are the ones they buy from some guy on the corner…then it is no questions asked.
        And will they change their own lifestyle to match the rhetoric of concern over “carbon” pollution? Yeah, right!
        Buy some organic food if it does not cost too much extra or look all wilted, buy a Prius, make sure to know all the latest virtue signaling phraseology…and call it a day.

        The hypocrisy could not be more evident if it was on purpose.

    • Teaching is about indoctrination. Studies are not taught to think, (actually, they appear to be actively discouraged from doing so) but just to regugitate that which is told to them. That’s the point of schools—churn out indoctrinated persons. People apparantly think this is fine since they persist in sending their children to public schools to be indoctrinated.

    • The point of education is indoctrination, not learning. Students are actively discouraged from thinking. People apparently find this acceptable and normal, since they keep sending their children to schools to be indoctrinated.

  18. Can you imagine the science is settled, so they kill those that disagree with them. Don’t insult a warmist for lack of intelligence though after you’ve explained something to them in 10 different ways. But it’s ok for them to call for you to be jailed or brought up on crimes against humanity.

  19. Just the observation of a retired mechanical engineer: CO2 constitutes about 400 ppm in the atmosphere, right now. So how long ago was it around 200 ppm? That would be a doubling, right? What has been the effect on temperature in that time?

    • Shall we compare our interglacial climate with periods of glaciation? Your question presumes that CO2 is the agent that warms or cools the earth. Just yesterday, the temperature at my house was 39F as the sun was rising. In just two hours, with the sun still low in a clear sky, the temperature had risen to 49F. There has been no alarmed raised over a significant change in CO2 over the last day, so I assume CO2 was relatively constant. Clearly, something else is at work. And today, the temperature did not rise so fast, but then we can’t see the sun through the clouds. It makes you wonder, eh?

      But don’t be deterred from you line of inquiry. All the elaborate climate models make the same assumption you do. They assume CO2 is the agent. They, of course, pretend to model “natural variability”, but they have no way to “model” clouds except through non-physical parameters that they hope replicate the formation and properties of clouds. Which is most remarkable. On flights to and from Hawaii, I find the atmosphere has an enormously complex layering of clouds, from sea level to 35,000 feet. It reminds me of an opal. And yet, for hundreds of miles in every direction, the models have but one value for each of those parameters, and they are comfortable that they have captured “natural variability”.

  20. The figure of 1 to 17,352 of skeptics to believers among Climate Scientists was recited at the Congressional Hearings, this was to suggest that having Curry, Pielke and Christy along with Mann on the panel was not a proportional representation of Climate Science views. Assuming those three were the only skeptics in Climate Science, that would suggest that there were 52,056 other qualified climate scientist who have a pro catastrophic AGW opinion. Seems highly unlikely that there are much more that a tenth of that number of scientists in all of Climate Science. And if you add in all the other contrarians, well we are probably getting into the millions of scientist in Climate Scence.

  21. The Heartland Institute’s dedication to ending the one sided education of our children on the issue of climate change is extraordinary. Thank you Joe Bast and all the rest of you at Heartland and to your amazing financial backers my deepest graditude. Yes, the media and school executives and political forces will demean your effort and do all they can to burn those books, but some teachers will find a way to balance their teachings as a result. Hooray.

  22. I had the opportunity to pick up my niece at her middle school recently, and stumbled on a student’s global warming quiz in the shrubbery. While I was a little disappointed by the mis-representation of Antarctic melting, I was totally appalled by the question dealing with why some people disagree; i.e., they build cars, or pump oil.

    The new scientific method apparently includes: If someone disagrees with you, assign bad motives, belittle them and move on.

    • That reminds me of a line in Federalist Paper #1, written by Alexander Hamilton:

      “So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question”

  23. Can’t we just have an Ubermensch to rule over us?

    “Scientists protecting our communities”
    A nice Superman, with a handful of Aryan scientists and a superior caste, could just tell us all what to own, who has children (genetically determined), where to live and what to wear. Simple. Why didn’t Neiztche think of that.

  24. Can we please have a campaign in the UK like this to counter the insidious infection of CO2 climate alarmism here?

    My daughter, a 6th form student (an 18 year old in her final year at school) was reduced to tears when I gave her some very good reasons why the world won’t end in a cinder fireball because CO2 is generated by mankind.

    She didn’t believe me when I told her there are no empirical studies over the last 40 years or so that prove atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. By this time, there should be hundreds of irrefutable studies on the subject, but there are none.

    She didn’t believe me when I told her anthropogenic sea level rise was a myth, nor that sea levels across the planet are variable.

    She had never been told that the planet had greened by 14%, a NASA study that outstrips any collective detrimental effect of CO2, imagined or otherwise, by some considerable margin.

    She has been brainwashed, principally, by an ex oil company geologist, now her Geography teacher, who has convinced a generation of children that the debate is finalised and that somehow, possibly the single most productive gas on the planet, despite its trace nature, is dangerous to us all.

    Our children are being indoctrinated with this left wing claptrap to ensure they build a future of socialism which, ironically, by it’s very nature, morphs into dictatorship.

    Thank f^ck we have voted to leave the EU. Thank f^ck we have Trump determined to quash this hysterical b^llshit. Whilst neither are perfect, they at least afford us the ability to determine the fate of our own future.

    And whilst we sceptics are condemned, for condemning our children to a nuclear winter, the insane greens and liberal left are condemning us to global bankruptcy and population control, hand in hand with the corrupt Club of Rome.

    At the very best, they will simply consign our children to abject poverty, at worst, it will be a global government dictatorship under the guise of the United Nations.

    This is the future our children face. I would far rather they were poor and free rather than poor and shackled.

    Who amongst the green lunatics will stand up and defend their condemnation to subjugation of my children?

    None. My daughters tears are for naught.

    • Just wait until the power fails and people start freezing to death or going hungry who have never known these things…people can wise up mighty fast.
      Everyone knows that there are such a thing as lies…even big giant lies.
      It may take a real kick in the butt to see this one for what it is, but when that day comes…they will see all at once that they have been lied to, duped, fooled, and lead on…all by people who they thought they could trust.
      While I was growing up and in school, everyone I knew was aware that the people who taught us and even our parents were often spouting BS, or were just wrong about something they believed, and where often flat-out hypocrites.
      I can not even remember when I changed my mind about a lot of things I once believed.
      My guess is that it is the same for everyone.

      • >>
        Just wait until the power fails and people start freezing to death or going hungry who have never known these things…people can wise up mighty fast.
        <<

        Wishful thinking, I’m afraid. Angry people or mobs don’t necessarily go after the real cause of their misery. Lynch mobs don’t always hang the guilty–just who they think is guilty. The Reign of Terror in France didn’t just take out most of the royalty, but anyone else who proved inconvenient to the Committee of Public Safety,

        Jim

    • Advice to Parents – UK Teaching.
      If you become aware of anything being taught to your child which is either factually incorrect or politically biased or considered to be propaganda then write a letter to the headmaster of the school detailing your complaints with cc to the government minister responsible ( DoE) AND COPY TO YOUR SOLICITOR.

      Await reply !

  25. My wife is a science teacher in public schools in the Seattle, WA area. She occasionally asks me questions regarding the subject of CAGW and I provide her with links and articles, usually originating from one of the WUWT posts. She regularly reminds her students about the scientific process and the various times that eminent scientists have been wrong.

    Einstein was considered to be among the smartest persons to have lived and his theories widely accepted. Yet it was not heretical for Hawkings to disagree, it was literally his job.

    When one side of a debate just wants to shut down the other side rather than having a logical discussion you can pretty much guarantee something is not right and we should all instantly be skeptical of what we are being told.

  26. “… 2016 was the planet’s hottest year ever …” Christian Science Monitor.
    ================================
    “Ever” that would be 6,005 years:
    “Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). So a simple calculation is:
    5 days + 2,000 years + 4,000 years = 6005 years”.

  27. Then we get to the question of the relevance of opinions of people about something that nobody can prove.
    May as well solve the Riemann Hypothesis this afternoon. Can we have a show of hands? For? Against?
    The Riemann Hypothesis is PROVEN!!
    Next. Goldbachs Conjecture..

  28. ” ,,, half to two-thirds of atmospheric scientists think that humans have been the cause of at least half of the warming over the past 50-150 years.”
    Exactly what is their EVIDENCE ? Oh, that’s right, please send money … they are still looking for it.

    • It’s the results of two actual surveys. Like all surveys, it could be skewed, it has a margin of error… But, unlike Cook, Powell and the other second hand blogger reviews, these are actual surveys of actually relevant scientists.

      The Mailbach surveys demolish the 97% consensus and conclusively prove that there is quite a lot of scientific disagreement among atmospheric scientists on the issue of AGW.

  29. The problems with articles like this is that it are likely not read by average persons or AGW believers.

    What we need ist concise, clear and easy understandable messages.

    This includes getting attention and a quick oveview over the matter. Eplanations could follow later – if somebody like to go deeper.

    Rant-like lenghty article do not help our case.

    • Do you have such a clear and concise set of massages in mind?
      Or is yours just an offhand dismissal, of the sort that no one cares about and that do not help our case?

  30. >>
    . . . another tiny percentage that the impact of meteorites, rather than volcanic eruptions, had created lunar craters . . . .
    <<

    This always seems to be difficult terminology for folks. Meteors are what you see flashing across the sky. Meteors, if they are large enough (on the Earth–on the Moon size doesn’t matter), are what impact the surface . If you really want to be picky, the object causing the meteor and possibly impact with the ground is a meteoroid. A meteorite is the mineral that survives a meteor/meteoroid impact.

    Jim

Comments are closed.