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.
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.
Charlie Wood
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.
[…]
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:
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.”
Introduction
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.
Previous Studies of Consensus
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.
[…]
Results and Conclusions
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.
[…]
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.
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:
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.
Addendum
This is “controversial” book in question:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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 !
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.
The logo on the placards looks more like a serpent strangling ‘communities’.
“… 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”.
My maths are hopeless, that should be 6000 years 5 days.
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..
” ,,, 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.
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?
>>
. . . 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