President “Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change”… He’s right, Dana Nuccitelli is wrong

Guest rebuttal by David Middleton

Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans

There’s a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming, but most Americans are unaware

Dana Nuccitelli

Mon 22 Oct 2018 06.00 EDT

[…]

The Guardian

Back around 2009, I “crossed swords” with Mr. Nuccitelli a few times in the Yahoo! Answers forum.  Dana is a smart guy and strikes me as a very decent person.  The last think I want is for him to be able to copy one or two words from my post and run whining to  the the New York Times and complain about civility; so I will make a concerted effort to not insult him in this post… But I just can’t resist this…

 

Dana… Mr. Data is laughing at you.

Scientists are very divided on climate change

Much of my rebuttal was put together from prior WUWT posts on this subject, there’s at least one new addition to the vast evidence of scientific division (Stenhouse et al., 2017).

Stenhouse et al., 2014   told us that atmospheric scientists are very divided on climate change over the past 150 years.

89% × 59% = 52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus.

When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the results become even more interesting…

Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus.  Even self-described climate scientists only reach 78%.

Maibach et al., 2016 told us that atmospheric scientists were very divided about climate change since 1950.

“Climate change is real”

Page 8 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016-4

Close, but no cigar… Only 96% of “scientists” agree that climate change is real.

“Man-made”

Pages_11_12 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016_Page_1

Only 67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and man-made.

“And dangerous”

Page 20 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016-2

Only 38% of “scientists” characterized climate change as having been dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the past 50 years.

Page 22 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016-3

Only 50% of “scientists” characterized climate change as being dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the next 50 years.

“And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

 So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead. 

–Thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama, April 18, 2015

survey-says-300x250

Pages_11_12 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016_Page_2

Only 18% of “scientists” thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of “scientists” indicated that climate change might as well be “ignored.”

Climate Change…

Survey Says.png

Conflict within the AMS

Stenhouse et al., 2017 tells us that there is conflict within the American Meteorological Society on the subject of climate change.

This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.

So… Where does this 97% number originate?

Second hand opinions of abstracts of papers. The authors’ tabulate their opinions regarding whether or not the abstracts support the AGW paradigm.  One of the earliest examples was Anderegg et al., 2010.   The most recent and oft-cited is Cook et al., 2013 (Mr. Nuccitelli was a coauthor).

As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the 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 calcifiers 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.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the example Cook provided:

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

By this subjective standard, I have probably explicitly endorsed the AGW “consensus” in many of my WUWT posts.

By Cook’s standards, I have implicitly endorsed AGW without minimizing it and implicitly endorsed but did not quantify or minimize.  While I am a luke-warmer, I am 100% certain that I have never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus.

No Schist, Sherlock.

One of the most frequent refrains is the assertion that “climate scientists” endorse the so-called consensus more than other disciplines and that the level of endorsement is proportional to the volume of publications by those climate scientists. Well… No schist, Sherlock! I would bet a good bottle of wine that the most voluminous publishers on UFO’s are disproportionately more likely to endorse Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a documentary. A cursory search for “abiogenic hydrocarbons” in AAPG’s Datapages could lead me to conclude that there is a higher level of endorsement of abiogenic oil among those who publish on the subject than among non-publishing petroleum geologists.  This doesn’t elevate their hypothesis to a scientific consensus.

These exercises in expertise cherry-picking are quite common. A classic example was Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I would answer risen to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would answer “no.”

Interestingly, economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…

The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

The survey was limited to government and academic scientists.  Had the survey included economic geologists in the mining and oil & gas industries, only about 30% would have answered “yes” to question #2.

The authors then derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.  I could run through numerous surveys of geoscientists that demonstrate strong disagreement with the so-called consensus.

The authors close with a “no schist, Sherlock” bar chart:

The most recent example of expertise cherry-picking was Stenhouse et al., 2014.

The 52% consensus among the membership of the American Meteorological Society explained away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise” among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…

While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.

Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of predicted harm caused by global warming.

So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models.  No schist, Sherlock!

What, exactly, is a “climate scientist”?

35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, geochemists to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policy-ologists.

NASA’s top climate scientist for most of the past 35 years, James Hansen, is an astronomer. The current one, Gavin Schmidt, is a mathematician.

It seems to me that climate science is currently dominated by computer modelers, with little comprehension of the natural climate cycles which have driven climate change throughout the Holocene.

Climate scientist seems to be as nebulous as Cook’s definition of consensus.

Closing Note

I wrote this without actually reading beyond the headline of Mr. Nuccitelli’s article.  Did I miss anything?

OK… I glanced at it… Nope, I didn’t miss anything.

References

Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107, 12107–12109.

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.

Doran, P., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 99, 22–23.

Legates DR, Soon WW-H, Briggs WM et al. (2013) Climate consensus and “misinformation”: a rejoinder to “agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change”. Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.

Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National
Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.

Stenhouse, N., and Coauthors, 2014Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional membersBull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.9510291040, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1.

Stenhouse, N., A. Harper, X. Cai, S. Cobb, A. Nicotera, and E. Maibach2017Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98219–223, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00265.1

Advertisements

158 thoughts on “President “Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change”… He’s right, Dana Nuccitelli is wrong

  1. If the climatariat genuinely believed we were on the verge of “wrecking the planet,” wouldn’t the rational response…. if not the overwhelmingly desperate felt need…. be to hold debates and thereby show the world how right they are? In my opinion their refusal to debate is prima facie evidence they have to confidence the
    facts are on their side. I think we should make a bigger issue of this.

    • If the UN/IPCC ,and the climate scientists that advise them on policy…genuinely believed that global warming was a problem..
      ..they would never have put policies in place that allow the vast majority of countries to increase their emissions

      …so they don’t believe it either…game over

      • Spot on. Giving China a free pass and putting them on the receiving end of the Green [ slush ] Fund , makes a mockery of the idea that this is a real physical problem.

        BTW, who is going to take someone with a gender ambiguous forename, who rides around on a PINK Vespa, seriously as an objective scientist. He is buried up to his ass in identity politics and certainly regards climate activism as part of the same social virtue signalling process.

        • To be fair the pink might be cancer motivated,but Mr Nutticelli (oops, Grauniad typo) should decide if he is scientist, or activist. It’s hard to maintain untainted scientific credibility when you are both.

          • The above are very good points.

            We know that climate has always changed. My city’s location was once covered by a mile of ice – a continental glacier, and that was just ~ten thousand years ago – the blink of an eye in geologic time.

            In addition, all we (probably) know is that:
            1) Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, possibly or probably due to human activities.
            2) A hypothetical doubling of CO2 from the so-called “pre-industrial” level of VERY approx. 280ppm to 560ppm would cause AT MOST 1C of global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018) , which is NOT dangerous, but is net-beneficial for humanity and the environment.
            3) Increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial for the environment and humanity, due to greatly increasing plant and crop yields.
            4) In conclusion, there is no credible evidence of dangerous manmade global warming, and ample evidence to the contrary.

            What we do not know for certain is more interesting, but is generally ignored in the fractious climate debate:
            a) What are the primary causes of increasing atmospheric CO2? Why are we so sure it is fossil fuel combustion? What are the other contributors, such as deforestation, agriculture, and other human and natural causes, and how big are they?
            b) If we are so sure that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, how is it that atmospheric CO2 trends lag atmospheric temperature trends in the modern data record by ~9 months, and by hundreds of years in the ice core record? Are we confident that the future is a significant driver of the past, and if so, why?

            The dumbing-down of the general public, including our idiot/corrupt politicians and civil serpents, is regrettable.

            The dumbing-down of the science community is even more unfortunate.

            Regards, Allan

          • Allen, thank you for elaborating.
            I would like to add that IMHO, when you dumb down science, you dumb down everything else, except religion.

    • They have a strict policy to not enter a debate. I was scheduled to debate at MacMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario about 15 years ago. David Suzuki’s daughter was on the pro side. At the last minute, she withdrew (alleged death in the family). They supplied a true believer science fiction writer. You could never make this up.

      You can count the debates on one hand.

        • Actually one should not think it is easy to debate once one is on the right side. You need to know much more than your opponent thinks to know in order to fight wrong data.

          One idiot can produce a lot of outrageous claims that are painfully difficult to outcompete. Think of Dana Nuccitelli and his 97 per cent talking point. David wrote a long rebuttal. That means the work put in rebuttal is much larger than the original claim. That goes both ways.

          Nuccitelli is wrong about the overwhelming consensus, because he (she, it?, I’m not gonna check) talks to people who have consensus or apparent consensus on the existence of overwhelming co2 related climate change consensus.

      • I’ve observed this, myself, here in North Carolina, at all three of the largest local universities: the climate activists default strategy for “winning” the climate debate is to suppress dissent.

        In 2012, at the tail end of the great NC sea-level legislative kerfuffle, a freshman volunteer with the Duke University Environmental Alliance, the school’s largest student environmental club, invited representatives of NC-20 (including me), which backed the legislation, to participate in a planned “panel discussion” about the new law, scheduled for Oct. 30, 2012 at 6:30pm, along with Nicholas School faculty members, who had led the opposition to it (and who had a representative testify against the bill in Committee at the NC State Legislature, testimony that was remarkably blatant in its misrepresentation of the science). The young volunteer apparently didn’t realize that the purpose of the event was to propagandize for the Correct Viewpoint, and differing opinions were not permitted, so she wasn’t supposed to have invited us. When the faculty activists learned that we would be there, they all remembered conflicting commitments, and backed out. The environmental club then cancelled the panel discussion, because, according to the email from a club officer, “as an environmental group, we cannot let one side go unrepresented.” (A few weeks later the Nicholas School had Michael Mann come down to speak on campus, for a fat fee, and everyone there forgot their aversion to one-sided events.)

        In 2014, when very distinguished Princeton atmospheric physicist Will Happer was scheduled to teach a Physics Colloquium at his alma mater, UNC, left-wing activists in the Physics Department appealed to the Department Chairman, in an unsuccessful effort to get the event cancelled, because Prof. Happer is outspokenly skeptical of climate alarmism.

        In 2016, in front of a room full of people, at an event promoting climate alarmism, NCSU professor Ruben Carbonell promised me that I could present the other side in an upcoming presentation. I don’t know whether he ever intended to keep that promise. After ignoring my emails for a month, he finally replied, saying that he had “checked out… the organization that funds you” (note: no organization actually funds me, unfortunately), and “we have decided to focus our resources on other topics and programs.”

    • Their refusal to debate is political. Apart from (1) having nothing solid to debate, there’s (2) a need to do something, with having evidence to justify the doing.

      (1) Their consensus, is one of opinion, not one of facts believed. A consensus that IPCC experts opine this or that. Not that IPCC experts all agree upon some evidence. They do not all agree on the same GCM, atmospheric surface temperature dataset, or whether Hockey Sticks are science or statistical fraud. A debate would be a cacophony; like skeptics but even noisier, will more disagreement, and no harmony.

      (2) By claiming consensus, they can justify illusory certainty. From that, they justify action. Their ‘climate action’ always promotes a neo-Malthusian worldview to put the brakes on human ambition, to trash the human spirit.

      • The whole purpose of the false claims of broad “consensus” is because they want people to stop thinking, and blindly accept the propaganda they’re feeding them at every turn.

        Because when you begin to dig into their claims and the house-of-cards pseudo-science that supposedly supports said claims, you quickly find it to be nonsense.

        • They want politicians and media to stop thinking, and blindly accept the propaganda. Common people are not so stupid. “They” are not democrats. No climate policy is ever put to a vote. I don’t think they care much what “people” think.

    • Oh initially, before the “Dreaded Pause” came to be accepted as real by the committed, they did debate, but with disastrous results. They lost every one.

    • Agreeing with anthropogenic warming and believing that something ought to be done about it is not the same as actually doing something about it or even IF much can be done about it.
      Easy to say to others “this is a problem; do something about it”.
      Harder to get personally active, as that requires individual sacrifice.

    • I think this video, which is a conversation between Mark Levin and Patrick J Michaels puts the whole AGW into a nut shell.
      https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/mainstream-news-on-global-warming-theory-and-its-validity-not-by-mark-levin-and-patrick-j-michaels-american-association-of-state-climatologists-former-president/

      Particularly I like the way he points out that AGW models do not meet the criteria espoused by Karl Popper and how the models are but tools of government and inaccurate because they are based on warming in the 20th century which in not commensurate with the CO2 increases of the time.

      A must view for any discerning person who wishes to understand how we are today with Climate Change and the attempt to drop carbon fuels from the economies. Economies which will likely starve and impoverish the world.

      Cheers

      Roger

        • Care about climate change, or political correctness?
          How many folks who accept taking surveys are really educated on any of the issues they are willing to opine about?

  2. Pretty much, anyone using the 97% theme either does not understand the origin of the claim, or is deliberately being deceptive.

    • Or are simply parroting a position to be liked by others.

      My first question to these parrots is always “What percent of the atmosphere is made up of CO2?”
      When they fail, as they always do, you know immediately you are dealing with ignorance.

    • And now, ah, climate history, reading all the loud codswallop, for sure climate has no history !
      And “Greenland” was a mistaken translation from some “before God” tribal language !

      • Greenland was named, as far as I remember, by Erik The Red. The language at the time, 800 to 1100, was “olddansk”. Yes, in 1500 the language was changed to “gammeldansk” and in 1700 to “yngrenydansk”, which is what is spoken today. However, I doubt that green-land has changed it’s underlying meaning throughout the years. Back in early 1960’es during my young school years, I was explained that the term green-land was a promotional effort, most likely based on facts, that the Danes/Norwegians could have good time in Greenland and live of the land.
        In fact many moved to Greenland, but by 1400 there were hardly any left, as the climate grew too cold to survive, if you had not adapted the same way as the Eskimos. There is a biological reason why this was not possible for the Danes and Norwegians, but this is another story and has to do with the blood circulation difference between Eskimos and Danes/Norwegians.
        Language reference: https://prezi.com/l90anhldis34/det-danske-sprog/

        • fascinating post Carl – obviously you’re Scandinavian judging by the name? do you ahve anymore info on the biological differences between Norse and Eskimo that contributed to the above?

        • There were no Danes in Greenland at the time of settlement or during the Norse period. They were all from Norway or Iceland.

    • To the extent I got to know Dana… I thought he was a decent person with good intentions. But I can’t resist Data laughing almost as much as I can’t resist Dean Wormer’s “Zero-point-zero”.

      • He certainly is not stupid, well educated but probably didn’t find his intended vocation as a scientist, attractive or financially rewarding, so he does what he enjoys more and possibly is better paid for, writing simple and plain science fiction.

        • Dana worked in the fossil fuel industry before the Guardian. I can see why a climate alarmist would find that unattractive. The jibes from other alarmists must’ve been hard to bear.

          • No… Dana works/worked for a large civil/environmental engineering consulting firm… Largely related to compliance. As such, they did a lot of work for fossil fuel companies.

      • I’m surprised Scooter is still around. However nice of a person he is, it is clear from his comments and articles he is a zealot.

  3. There are actually two issues making Climate Science toxic and failing of which you got one

    1.) What, exactly, is a “climate scientist”?

    The issue is the field has got so wide it involves so many fields even if I saw someone qualified to discuss one area they aren’t qualified to discuss another. They are definitely not qualified enough to provide answers on how to tackle any problem found. The whole activism activities of the scientists compounds the issue, would you trust your GP if he was an activist for a pharmaceutical company.

    The other issue you left out

    2.) The field has taken on things like social and political equality and justice

    I was actually stunned a few years ago when the IPCC started introducing that into the field because it was a death sentence. That is a political ideology that a very small minority accept. If a field of study ever want to self euthanize itself that was the thing to bring into the field. Majorities in almost every country will have problems with parts of that concept.

    The first might be fixable but it is all sort of moot now the second sealed the fate and I don’t know where you go from there. I suspect in years to come there will be lots of stories about this period.

    • Maybe the Climate Science profession should require a certification like a CPA or Professional Engineer. Aren’t the stakes for harm to humans and the environment much higher if a Climate Scientist makes a miscalculation?

  4. It’s fascinating that a “consensus” that allows as little as 50.0001% anthropogenic warming *since 1950* is used as political support for arbitrary targets pegged to warming since late-19th-century levels. I’ve always felt that warming *since 1950* should be the relevant guidepost, instead of not-really-pre-industrial levels. The “warming since pre-industrial times” meme implies that there was a constant temperature in pre-industrial times and we know exactly what it was — neither is true.

    • Before it “warmed from 1950”, it first had to cool off from 1950 to 1980. Then it warmed from 1980 to the present at the same magnitude as the warming that took place from 1910 to 1940.

      The Hansen 1999 US Chart below shows the ups and downs. The Hansen 1999 Chart temperature profile is consistent with unmodified temperature profiles from around the globe, i.e., the 1930’s is as warm or warmer than subsequent years.

      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

  5. Thanks, David. As an Economic Geologist I am thrilled to be cited as most in denial. As T. Boone Pickens said in his recommendation for assessing the health of a potential acquisition target, find the highest ranking geologist you can and ask them, because 1. they know the answer, and 2. they tend to tell it straight out. Any geologist that thinks in the lessons of Sequence Stratigraphy has no concern whatsoever about a few meters of sea level movement, it doesn’t register as a useable signal against the noisy background. It actually is amusing to watch climate scientists quibble over two degrees C change.

  6. To laugh like Mr. Data, all I have to do is think about people swimming down Canal St. to get to work. AGW is science fiction at work. You just have to believe that the Westside highway is under water. You just have to believe any number of scary things…. on the brink of Halloween. A House of Climate Horrors with AGW as a zombie science, the walking dead.

  7. What people or scientists think is irrelevant. What can be demonstrated with reproducible results may be relevant. The biggest issue to me, though, is the assertion by the orthodoxy that the world’s climate is a univariate system where the only relevant variable is carbon dioxide. The theory that the state of the system is determined by a trace gas implies a dangerous instability that is contradicted by a mountain of evidence. Why this assumption of a univariate system continues to be given credibility is unfortunate. The debate should not be framed in this way.

    • If you only include carbon dioxide you are missing the major GHG – H20. Now we all know the shape of the curve relating CO2 concentration to assumed global temperature, and how it flattens so that doubling the concentration from 400 to 800 ppm will warm the assumed global temperature about 1K, or less. The question is: does water vapour have a similar concentration/temperature curve, and if so, give that the concentration over most of the earth, except the driest deserts such as Antarctica, would be 1000 ppm or more (possibly up to 4000 ppm above tropical seas), are we already on the near flat section of the curve? If so, increasing the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere should do little to increase global temperatures.

      • The Univariate hypothesis requires treating water vapor as a variable that is completely dependent on CO2. The IPCC treats the dependency of water vapor on CO2 as an axiom that is not subject to question. If the axiom that water vapor is a completely dependent variable on CO2 is subject to proof, then the entire Univariate hypothesis collapses. I think it is the weakest point of the Climate Change orthodoxy, but they will not entertain any debate on something they consider sacred.

  8. I have a database for monsoon rainfall vs the solar cycle that delivers +0.94 r2 correlation. The response is antipathetic with rain rising as the solar cycles fall and obviously vice versa. There is no trend whatsoever since 1813 when the monsoon was first recorded. That tells me that the Sun trumps the industrial revolution. Coincidently, according to the biggest glaciers of the Alps, the Little Ice Age came to an abrupt end about 1810 – 1820. I conclude that the tiny rise is not climate change or is completely an artifact of weather stations moved from the barbershop in our towns to the major airports on our planet.

    I have two thermometers, one on the porch rail and one on the wall. The porch rail is usually 3-5 degrees C colder than the outside brick wall of my home.

  9. Today’s climate scientists can be anything …

    And yet when they receive criticism the first thing they do is to point out that whoever is doing the criticism is not a ‘climate scientist’.

    Dr. Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame, is a physicist. He has no formal training in anything to do with trees. No climate scientists complained that Mann was unqualified to use tree rings to guess the historical temperature.

    • I read Mann’s paper years ago. He’s no biologist – nowhere was there a discussion of factors affecting tree ring size. In my view, a huge flaw in his paper. How did it come to be published without such a discussion?

  10. Credentials don’t matter. Al Gore has credentials. What matters is that the narrative supports values that undercut western civilization, an eternal goal of those who envy success.

  11. It would be interesting to assess the data with regards to funding — what do government-funded scientists say vs. those who are not. Sounds like PhD project for somebody…

  12. I like simple numbers. From 3,146 respondents in that survey, whopping 75 answered “yes”. After pruning out most of respondents as insufficiently qualified for any reason, 77 were left. 75/77=97%, try it yourself.

    • In other words, the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe humans are causing the climate to change is just another fraud perpetrated by the Alarmists.

      This is a perfect example of how a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the “truth”.

  13. OffGuardian has a review of a pro-AGW book up. It’s a positive review, but their comment policy is very open and anyone who feels like going over there to discuss almost certainly won’t be silenced. Some dreadful Calvinistic nonsense being spouted below the line

    Review: Unprecedented Crime
    https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/50139/

  14. A (subtitle?) in the article states “Only 18% of “scientists” thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of “scientists” indicated that climate change might as well be “ignored.””

    It’s easy to see where the “41%” came from. The 18% is obviously 17% + 1% who believe all or much of the change can be averted. But I can’t for the life of me see where “… any point in destroying our economy …” came from. Oh, that’d probably HAPPEN, but they can’t all be okay with it. Let’s not put words in their mouths. I don’t like it when they do it to me, and fair’s fair.

    • I didn’t say I wouldn’t inject any hyperbole, I just said I’d try not to insult Dana.

      Although, the IPCC’s latest and greatest SR 1.5 tells us that they need a $240/gal gasoline tax and about $133 trillion to avert all or much of future climate change… Kinda hard to see that as anything other than destroying our economy.

      I suppose that thinking that “all or much of the change can be averted” isn’t an endorsement of destroying our economy… unless I use a Cook-style rating system.

  15. This is very interesting. I look forward to seeing a similar analysis as to who should be proposing solutions for this “problem”. Who has the right to say wind and sun are the best energy sources to prevent this unimaginable warming of 1.5 deg?

    $trillions have been spent on this stuff without any appreciable effect. How on Earth did that happen? Our politicians must be dumber than we even imagined.

  16. I do not want to be seen as harsh or some thing like that but got to say
    that academia of science is in principle no any much different than the
    other academia, the religious one.

    Sorry, no meaning to offend but got to put this list expressing my
    understanding, or my view point:

    A 97% consensus in the Budist academia desagree with the very
    lord or deity they worship.

    A 97% consensus in the Hinduism academia desagree with the very Vedic scriptures and their God.

    A 97% consensus in the Islamic academia desagree with Quran and their
    God.

    Same goes for Christian and Judaism.
    and then
    A 97% of scientific academia desagree with the reality and the very method
    the academia worships as “path” of unbiased research and learning.

    As as I can tell, nothing new under the Sun, especially when considering
    the zealots too.

    Sorry if I happen to upset or offend or hurt any one feelings.

    cheers

  17. “Stenhouse et al., 2014 told us that atmospheric scientists are very divided on climate change over the past 150 years.”

    How long are we going to use ‘150 years’ as the benchmark for how long it has been since the pre-industrial age began? It has been 168 years now since 1850, and on Jan 1/19, it will be 169 years. We were using ‘150 years ago’ 8-9 years ago. If we use 150 years forever, then at some point it doesn’t mean anything since it will be ancient history. I think the date we should use for any time since human warming began is the year the space age began in 1957. I could easily remember that, as I was born just a few months before the space age began, and the Spaceocene should be the new moniker we should measure the man made warming from. Then it would be 61 years since man made global warming began.

    • I think the date we should use for any time since human warming began is the year the space age began in 1957.

      Icarus flying toward the Sun makes just as much sense.
      Or the date Henry Ford launched the Model T — October 1, 1908.

      • Sounds good to me…as long as it isn’t perpetually 150 years ago that the man made warming began.

  18. So, I ask a train layout builder who has been making model building all their life for advice when I build my home in Florida. They say their wood of choice is balsam wood and that his MODELS are very strong. Who wants to live in that house when a Cat 1 hits my house.
    As an degree holding Ecologist, I know my limitations when I talk about issues that I am not completely educated in. I have a wildlife issue I go to a Wildlife Biologist who is knowledgeable of the species I am interested in. While I can converse in the field I rely on their expertise for the facts.
    It seems to me that the whole climate issue is this propensity to rely on models and people talking about things they are not experts on.
    We need to get to the FACTS and the FACTS will set us free.

    • Sciwiz

      I know two facts.

      1. No one has ever reliably, by empirical means, established that atmospheric CO2 heats up the planet.

      2. The single meaningful, observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite observations. Nothing in the lexicon of climate alarmist predictions even comes close to that fact they didn’t anticipate.

      Any predictions of climate change predicated on 1. are speculative and therefore worthless. That pretty well puts paid to every prediction made by any climate alarmist, ever.

      • Exactly, my point is we have to base our knowledge on facts not models and that our facts must be constantly verified. I was an Air Force Navigator for 22 years and our weather forecasts rarely were right on, we sent weather reports each hour to provide real data that was used to improve their forecasts. But over 22 years the forecasts had about the same reliability.

    • I use paper card for many models on my train layout.

      And I can vouch that they are very susceptible to Cat #1 🙂

  19. Oh, that’s right. There’s another annual Party-on-the-Plaza COP?? coming up in Poland when? I don’t keep track anymore. They’ll run around chasing cameras and attempting to score soundbites for a few days, then meet for 4-5 hours to produce The Statement™ that proclaims we’re all doomed, but the U. S. must pay-up, and at the end an announcement to schedule the next one. I was starting to wonder at the frequency of these press-releases, all saying we’re doomed and it’s all Trump’s fault. Case solved.

  20. This same group of climate people, can’t make predictions well. I still haven’t heard of a tropical hot-spot forming. I’m preparing for another brutally cold winter in Nebraska.

  21. As far back as 1954 the award winning author Saul Bellow had his short story protagonist in “The Gonzaga Manuscripts” say: “I don’t keep up much with science …. I remember I read somewhere that industry gives off six billion tons of carbon dioxide every year and so the earth is growing warmer because the carbon dioxide in the air is opaque to heat radiation.”

    So the CO2 causes warming contention was being promoted as popular science well over 60 years ago. Although the interpretation back then was quite calmly accepted; as Bellow’s protagonist went on to say: “All that means {is} that the glaciers won’t be coming back.”

  22. Dana Nuccitelli’s idea of consensus is the one he brought to The Guardian from the website that cannot be named-if you delete all the objections then of course you can achieve a huuuge “consensus”.
    I discovered that truth about a decade ago when I actually tried debating the topic on the afore-unmentioned website. After a few exchanges with one individual, a quite lengthy post of mine, politely replying to each point the individual made, was entirely edited down to zero. Not deleted, but, by their own account, just edited for wrongspeak.

    • In my opinion, editing another person’s post is much, much worse than deleting it.
      It isn’t all that different from using sock puppets in order to find someone to agree with you.

  23. The 97% consensus lie is nothing more than a carefully constructed lied fed to the news media and the greens. It is all based on the proposition that a lie told often enough soon becomes the truth.

    Think about it, the 97% has been repeated over and over both within the scientific community and news media but preached from “on high” by technocrats and political leaders. Therefore how is a good citizen, Joe and Martha Sixpack suppose to ignore or believe that it is not the truth? Especially since science education in the USA especially has declined dramatically since the beginning of this bizarre fiasco.

    • The 97% is perfectly plausible given no scientist can operate without grants and no grants have been given to any climate scientist who put forward an idea even suspected of undermining man mad CO2 based climate change.
      Peer review is as plausible as testing all juries for belief in the defendant being guilty before allowing them to sit on that jury and then saying the guilty verdict is fair and reasonable.
      Any computer modeller will tell you a computer model is only as good as the underlying data and in the case of climate data it is sub junk standard using even low end commercial product engineering standards.
      A scientific education is no basis for the practical requirements of data acquisition and peer review references prove no attention worth speaking of is paid to that aspect of the task.

      • D Cage

        It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that any data going back to the 1850’s when the IR began is worthless. SST’s taken by a cabin boy chucking a bucket over the side, to no defined depth before sticking his finger in it to see if it is warmer or colder than yesterday, assuming he had time.

        Those SST’s being taken along well worn trade routes and other than a few brave souls rounding the cape, almost no measurement of the southern oceans. Them modern ships with automated intakes, but no international agreements on standards which meant a variance of up to 8°C.

        Tea boys being sent out into the snow/wind/rain/blistering heat by the ‘responsible’ scientist to take the days measurements from the Stevenson screen, which was a good excuse for a ciggie, assuming of course the screen was maintained properly, well positioned and painted with compliant materials. And if the tea boy actually read the thermometer it would differ from the next tea boy’s readings because one was 5’3″ and the other 6’2″ tall.

        Even satellites were/are plagued with drift, calibration issues and faulty parts. They sent Hubble up with a wonky mirror FFS!

  24. It would help science greatly, if the antagonists would stop the semantic games, the model apologies, and indulgence of inference, where they create ever more absurd, dramatic plot twists.

  25. Trouble is also that people are too busy or a bit lazy and just want to have the answer without the details, hence the statistical sleight of hand BS bite size now easily remembered figure of ‘97%’ gets quoted too quickly; but because no one really knows, it’s just too ‘scary’ for the general public believing scientists have all the answers, which of course we don’t know why things work they way they do to a myriad of descriptions of the Universe that we are. We can describe/parrot things, but in many or even the majority of cases we don’t really know why things are the way they are; for example the Standard Model of currently 17 elemental ‘particle/wave/things’ (why did nature replicate Generation I as II & II, as far as we know).

  26. Laudable, David, that you don’t wish to insult Mr N. Indeed leave that to the those who have nothing pithy to say in support of a crumbling political putsch. Something Steve McIntyre said that rings loudly is:

    “In my opinion, most climate scientists on the Team would have been high school teachers in an earlier generation – if they were lucky. Many/most of them have degrees from minor universities. It’s much easier to picture people like Briffa or Jones as high school teachers than as Oxford dons of a generation ago. Or as minor officials in a municipal government.

    Allusions to famous past amateurs over-inflates the rather small accomplishments of present critics, including myself. A better perspective is the complete mediocrity of the Team makes their work vulnerable to examination by the merely competent.”

    Steve is a gentle, kind, self deprecating person. He arrived at this conclusion after years of clisci team thwarting his efforts to get data used in their studies and the low life tag team bitchy emails that resulted.

    It set me thinking regarding the exodus from the profession of dissallusioned climate scientists occasioned by the “Dreaded Pause” who came down with the well publicized Climate Blues (oh they rationalized some different reason, but the rationalization-(D*nile) is precisely why they fell ill). The team getting rid of the Pause was because of the devastation it was causing to the meme.

    It would seem that those vulnerable to finding that they had wasted years of study and over half a lifetime supporting a phlogiston theory would be the brightest and most scrupulous (but constitutionally fragile) practitioners. The mediocre and devious would cynically hang in there clinging to a falsified position for the good life, payola, and praise of political masters and entertainment stars.

  27. Rumor has it that the illegal migrants are planning on moving to Al Gores house
    because its carbon neutral and that is of course their first priority .
    Can we expect the Hollywood elite to open up their acreages too ?
    Doesn’t Moonbeam have a ranch they can stay in ?

    • No. America is open, and we welcome refugees, and expect others to pay the consequences. Then we can cry that the poor were hardest hit, and claim their votez.

  28. There is no man made climate change
    but that does not mean that there is no climate change.
    In fact it is happening, exactly as I predict it: warmer and drier at the higher latitudes and wetter and dramatically more wet at the lower latitudes.
    Click on my name to read my report.

  29. Nice to see a survey with simple questions where it is split in its parts.
    Normally you see questions like is AGW harmfull or other combinations.
    There is no way to answer that in an honest way if you can not split the double statement.

    In fact you can design a survey to get the wanted answer, if you are clever with the formulation of the questions.

  30. The 97% meme was ever a ploy: to keep sceptics arguing the case while the alarmists moved on. It’s like giving a dog a bone: he’s distracted and will keep at it for as long as possible.

    Once the fake statistic was set running it should have been left to rot and any further use of it treated with contempt (just tell ’em they’re liars). It’s the same as when people dream up scenarios which we label PC: it’s a distraction to make people challenge the PC – and shrug as they accept it as trivial. PC is a tool of those who want to disrupt society.

    It just doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things: Alarmists are liars and need their lies to be believed – or argued over – in order to promote their NWO – which has nothing to do with warming. (BTW: another PC meme is to attack ‘conspiracy theories’ whether they are valid or not).

    • Agreed. The best way to challenge this is just call them liar, fake scientist, or promoter of fraudulent stats. Precisely what one says should depend of who’s claiming 97%. Arguing it on ‘science’, presupposes there’s been something worthy of the name science or statistics. There hasn’t. Bad statistics are common in social sciences.

  31. Another point that just struck me:

    “While I am a luke-warmer, I am 100% certain that I have never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus”.

    I remember a time, only a few years ago, when the word “luke-warmer” was used quite regularly, and accurately, to describe people such as myself and others who frequent this site. It is interesting how the term now seems to have largely disappeared, to be replaced with more derogatory phrases. I suspect it simply conveyed something too close to the truth for alarmists to continue using.

      • And it holds in general politics too.

        Sometimes persuasion is used to try and influence the floating-voter who might actually determine the outcome of an election. Insults, threats, and intimidation might also work, but in my case they have simply driven me to vote for people I hadn’t voted for before. The people who might do the most to get Trump re-elected seem to be the same voices who haven’t learned what didn’t work last time.

        • Her Hagness’ “deplorables” comment converted me from a vehement Clinton opponent into an avid Tump-supporter.

          President Trump’s first 21 months in office made me think he’s the best thing since Reagan… maybe since Madison.

          • And still they harp on a “blue wave” coming as if it is preordained reality. Nate Silver has declared there is only a 1 in 5 chance the Republicans will hold their majority in the HR. Meanwhile Republicans early voting is like nothing I can recall occurring in a midterm.
            https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/22/key-state-tracking-republicans-leading-democrats-in-early-voting/

            I am one of the early voters in Indiana and not a D got a vote from me. I didn’t used to be that way. I never voted party before the 2016 election, always voted for the person before that. The Democrats converted me into a straight ticket R. I have hardened to the point now that if a family member were running for office as a D I would vote against them.

            Am I just one of many that have changed like that? I think so. Our dreams of what or nations is and should be grow ever further apart as the middle ground is shrinking and becoming a no mans land between sides that are ever more entrenched.

            Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” I believe we are currently heading towards one of those times and doubt that anyone can change that course.

          • The Republicans might lose the House. Although, Nate’s bias is showing. The over/under is currently a GOP loss of 25 seats… making it close to a toss up. In the Senate, the GOP should have a net gain of 1-6 seats.

            Here in Texas, we were bombarded with headlines about record Democrat turnout in the primaries. 60% of the total turnout was Republicans… and we had no competitive statewide races.

            This year, we have been bombarded by Beto-mania… the fake Hispanic running against Ted Cruz. Four years ago, the lamestream media coronated Abortion Barbie as the next Governor of Texas months before Greg Abbott crushed her by a 20% margin. Cruz might not crush Beto by 20%, but he will crush him.

  32. All that’s needed to falsify the 97% consensus is to put up the following graph from the IPCC AR5 and ask the following questions:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS-14.jpg

    1/ What does the consensus agree on, the failed models or the 4 empirical datasets that falsify the models?

    2/ If the consensus agrees with the theoretical models, which model does the consensus agree is the correct one?

    Graph source: IPCC AR5 report, Working Group I, Technical Summary, pg. 87, fig. TS.14.

  33. The questions always ask is the global warming / climate change man made or natural, with the term man made interpreted as , because of CO2. But that’s not specifically asked and if one looks at the vast use of concrete that has been used in the modern society at least part of the change has been due to man but not necessarily CO2.
    I believe that the amount attributable to fossil fuels is as close to zero as to be irrelevant. Most of it is man made in the sense that it is MANipulated ( by MANN)

  34. Nuccitelli is not only wrong, his memory of where the number came from is wrong. And the claims made in the paper it came from, which he authored, is also wrong. Three wrongs definitely don’t make a right.

    The “97% consensus” is a consensus of scientific LITERATURE, not the number of scientists supposedly claiming humans are causing global warming. It came from a “study” by Nuccitelli, Cook and others reviewing the abstracts of 11,944 “peer-reviewed scientific” papers.

    In the abstract of their study they claimed: “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8EDD19163A68F5120D7C97B307B875A6.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

    Interestingly, no matter how you parse their data, you never arrive at the 97.1% number they claim. In fact the actual numbers are:

    0.54% claim humans cause 50% or more of global warming.
    7.72% explicitly claim humans cause it but don’t quantify how much.
    24.36% imply that humans cause global warming (highly subjective of course).

    That works out to 32.62% of papers endorsing global warming explicitly or implicitly.

    Which means that 67.38% do NOT endorse global warming. Of that group, 0.75% explicitly reject the notion that humans cause global warming.

  35. by David Middleton:

    It seems to me that climate science is currently dominated by computer modelers, with little comprehension of the natural climate cycles which have driven climate change throughout the Holocene.

    No “seeming” about it with me. It should be an obvious fact to most everyone.

    And the following is off-topic, ….. but a “timely” fact that needs told, to wit:

    “WOW”, ….. it did it again, ….. just like “clockwork”, …. for the 60th consecutive year.

    The maximum atmospheric CO2 ppm for 2018 occurred mid May.

    The minimum atmospheric CO2 ppm for 2018 occurred at end of September.

    year – mth ———- CO2 ppm
    2018 1 2018.042 407.96
    2018 2 2018.125 408.32
    2018 3 2018.208 409.41
    2018 4 2018.292 410.24
    2018 5 2018.375 411.24 mid May
    2018 6 2018.458 410.79
    2018 7 2018.542 408.71
    2018 8 2018.625 406.99
    2018 9 2018.708 405.51 end of September
    2018 10 ———— 406.87 October 22, 2018
    Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA-ESRL)

    And here it is October 23rd and the tree foliage is still “dark green” around here, and thus still “sucking up” atmospheric CO2 to produce sugars for the Spring growth next April/May.

  36. Climate alarmist will always have something to talk about because the climate is always changing. It is unlikely they will ever be able to model it accurately, so they will never know, more than generally, why the changes occur. The changes which are judged to be inimical are largely so because Man has settled somewhere and doesn’t want the weather to change unless, of course, things get better at that particular spot. Climate change has become “The Never-Ending Story”. Eventually, alarmist will lose their research money, and suddenly, the climate will cease to be newsworthy. We will then return to complaining about the weather.

    Does anyone really believe we can control the climate and make things better for everyone?

  37. You are too kind…. Dana probable thinks you were were spreading ‘misinformation’

    Dana writing at Skeptical Science (leaked forum)

    “Yes, the global warming section of Yahoo Answers was my first introduction to online climate science discussions over 4 years ago. It has some major plusses and minuses – there are some extremely well-informed people who answer questions there, some who are working in or studying the field of climate science. But there are also quite a few ‘skeptics’ who spread a lot of misinformation in their answers. In theory it’s a very useful site, as long as the person asking the question can differentiate between the good and bad answers, since invariably both are provided. So I visit the site on a daily basis to both spread what I’ve learned about climate science and also debunk the many, many factually incorrect skeptic answers. It would be a shame to allow such a potentially useful site to become a tool for ‘skeptics’ to misinform people who are sincerely seeking to learn about the subject.

    So yeah, I think I’ve averaged about 8 answers per day, pretty much every day for 4.5 years. It adds up. But each answer only takes a few minutes tops, unless I need to do additional research before answering. There aren’t too many complex questions there, it’s mostly along the lines of “is global warming a myth?” and “are we causing global warming?”, etc. Though some of the more frequent site users ask some really good questions too, and I’ve learned a lot from those.

    I think that’s where I was first introduced to Skeptical Science too, through links in other users’ answers. Skeptical Science is almost certainly the #1 referenced site in the Yahoo Answers global warming section. We’re all well-aware of the site and reference it frequently.”

    (Brandon hosts the leaked forum)
    http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Authors/2010-09-26-Dana's%20work%20in%20Yahoo%20Answers.html

    • The moderators of Yahoo! Answers routinely deleted skeptical answers when the Climatariat reported them as inappropriate. I stopped participating largely because I got tired of filing appeals, which usually succeeded.

  38. Skeptical Science [97%] Consensus Project – leaked forum.
    http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/

    Has this gem from Ari… Subject – marketing ideas [97%consensus]

    “I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research). I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t do this, but just that it seems a bit strange to me.” – Ari

    This topic was laughably started before they even defined the “consensus”, the SkS team really struggled with this, less sceptics be included in agreeing with it, they ended up going with the ‘porno’ approach – ‘no quantification’

    http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-01-24-Defining%20the%20scientific%20consensus.html

    John Cook:

    “Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being “any amount of human influence” or “more than 50% human influence”. We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that 🙂 which is AGW = “humans are causing global warming”. Eg – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.”

    And John Cook sounding a bit paranoid about Anthony Watts…

    John Cook:
    “The wording will have to be very carefully constructed because as you say, this will be going out to deniers too. Considering every denier scientist seem to have a direct line to a red phone on Anthony Watts’ desk, the existence of TCP will probably known to Watts before we’ve even looked at the results from the scientists. A scary thought really. For that reason, I think we should wait till as late as possible before emailing the scientists. Eg – wait till after quality control, once our results are done and analysed and the scientists’ ratings are the final piece in the puzzle.

    Keeping in mind our email will likely get broadcast on the denialosphere, we have to be very careful to have neutral wording that isn’t leading in any way. The word consensus will likely not even be mentioned. But this isn’t the thread to discuss that. I’ve started a thread just tonight on pinning down the quality control process and once that’s dealt with, then I’ll start working on the scientists self-rating stage. But if people want to post thoughts about that process, start a new thread and we can collect ideas in there.”

    hardcore political activists, the lot of them..

    Read this project forum and weep for science….
    http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/

  39. The NYT is where global warming science believers go to tattle when someone is mean to them? Who knew? I guess since it’s all devolved to the level of two year olds, a tattle room makes sense. Science is soooooo dead.

  40. People’s perception based percentage points has no meaning in the evaluation of science. In elections people go for this type of perception based percentages. At the end it may be yes or no. The credibility of science goes with scientific discussions.

    sjreddy

  41. I agree with Mr Michaels and have written similar conclusions for many years. For example:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/warming-up-the-poor-and-vulnerable/#comment-2483774

    “The IPCC’s special report clearly states that the world has already warmed by 1ºC due to human activity. As a result, climate change is already affecting people, ecosystems and livelihoods across the globe, with impacts such as floods or droughts disproportionately affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. Some of the most affected areas are small islands, megacities, coastal regions and high mountain ranges.”

    The above statement is simply .FALSE. – anyone who wrote it is a liar and anyone who believes it is a fool.

    Increasing atmospheric CO2 is NOT causing wilder weather and is NOT causing dangerous global warming.

    The net impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 will at most be slight warming, which will be net beneficial to humankind and the environment, and large increases in plant and crop yields, which will be hugely beneficial.

    The Greens have deliberately held back the poorest people in the world with their false opposition to energy. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.

    The position of the greens against energy is the same as their effective banning of DDT from 1972 to 2002 – both resulted in tens of millions of needless deaths, especially among children under 5, and enormous human suffering.

    Greens are the great killers of our age – that fact is incontrovertible. I suggest that they belong in jail.

  42. I have seen two debates and participated in one in 15 years. The format of the two I saw was to poll the audience before and after. Both showed a strong increase for the scientific approach which, while not an outright victory, showed the alarmists lost ground among the true believers.

    • I co-authored a written debate on the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, together with Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson (Carleton U) and Astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian), hosted by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta.

      In our rebuttal, we made eight statements, all of which have since proven correct. The following two are particularly important:

      1) “CLIMATE SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF CATASTROPHIC HUMAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”

      2) “THE ULTIMATE AGENDA OF PRO-KYOTO ADVOCATES IS TO ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUELS, BUT THIS WOULD RESULT IN A CATASTROPHIC SHORTFALL IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”

      We were correct on both these points 16 years ago – anyone who disputes this is denying reality:

      1) The climate models that predicted catastrophic global warming are all running much too hot.

      2) Grid-connected green energy schemes are a costly, intermittent, unreliable debacle.

      Our opponents in the debate, the leftist Pembina Institute, cited the IPCC reports and their predictions of dangerous runaway global warming, which have failed to materialize.

      The global warming alarmists at the IPCC have been consistently wrong to date – nobody should even listen to these false-alarm climate fraudsters.

    • Re: “Are we going to have Climate Nuremberg trials?”

      We should have Climate Nuremberg trials. Global warming alarmism was a major crime against humanity, with tens of millions of victims.

      The global warming scare was not just false science, it was deliberate fraud – that was proved by the Climategate emails.

      Green energy is typically not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy. The core problem is intermittency, which is the fatal flaw of grid-connected wind and solar power. Green energy enthusiasts then ASSUMED they can solve this fatal flaw with battery storage, which is more uneconomic nonsense.

      The fatal flaw of intermittency in green energy IS just that simple, but this obvious fact continues to elude many politicians and their minions.

      My co-authors and I correctly predicted the failure of most green energy schemes in 2002, as follows:
      “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

      In the same debate, we also wrote::
      “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

      Since then, tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on destructive green energy schemes that have driven up energy costs and destabilized electrical grids.

      An audit in 2018 of the EU’s leading climate alarmist energy policy program by Germany’s Federal Audit Office concluded that Germany’s Energiewende was a colossal and hugely expensive debacle. Almost a trillion dollars was squandered in Germany alone, just on wind power – the German audit estimated the loss at about $800 billion, as reported here on wattsup.

      Then there is all the wind power in other countries, and all the solar, and corn ethanol in North America and sugar cane ethanol in Brazil etc. and all the canola and palm oil biodiesel and … and … and ….

      Side-effects of these green energy scams included rapid draining of the vital Ogalalla Aquifer for corn ethanol production in the USA and clear-cutting of the rainforests in South America and Southeast Asia to grow biofuels. These actions caused huge environmental damage.

      A fraction of these wasted trillions could have put safe water and sanitation systems into every village on Earth, and run them forever. About two million kids below the age of five die from contaminated water every year – over sixty million dead kids from bad water alone since the advent of global warming alarmism.

      The remaining squandered funds, properly deployed, could have gone a long way to ending malaria and world hunger.

      Regards, Allan MacRae

  43. In my experience you couldn’t get 97% of a decent sized sampling of people to agree that the sky is blue on a clear sunny day.

  44. By Cook’s standards, I have implicitly endorsed AGW without minimizing it and implicitly endorsed but did not quantify or minimize. While I am a luke-warmer, I am 100% certain that I have never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus.

    You have never endorsed THEIR definition of consensus. You do endorse the only real consensus that climate change is happening, and the smaller but still big majority view that our emissions are partly responsible. Like me.

  45. The 97% figure comes from the Soviet Union, when president Brezhnev was always returned with 97% of the vote-mainly because there were no other candidates standing! (I always wondered what happened to the 3% who didn’t vote for him!)

  46. Consensus has no place in reputable science, which is supposed to be based on hard evidence and tight reasoning. Any scientist invoking consensus in support of a ‘scientific’ position is either lazy or dishonest. It may also be reasonably inferred that citing a consensus means that the person concerned is aware of the scientific weakness of his position.

    Consensus is appropriate for matters of fashion. “Do you think this tie goes well with my shirt?” All those in favour …

    • Galileo and Kepler were in the small minority in 1610. Many people were against Einstein’s theory of relativity. Even the Nobel Prize committee considered it controversial in 1921. That’s why he was awarded the Nobel Prize for photoelectric effect not for his theory of relativity. In reply to 100 Authors against Einstein, he said if I were wrong, one would be enough. Yes science is not done by vote or consensus.

      • Well said Dr S.

        On scientific and technical matters, I recommend:

        Richard Feynman on The Scientific Method (1964)
        https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
        at 0:39/9:58: ”If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
        At 4:01/9:58: “You can always prove any definite theory wrong.”
        At 6:09/9:58: “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.”

        and
        The writings of Karl Popper, for example
        “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”
        “The Open Society and Its Enemies”

        “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman

        “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.

        THIS IS THE global warming alarmists’ deceitful strategy:

        The “Climate Change” hypothesis is so vague, and changes so often, that it is not falsifiable and not scientific. It should be rejected as unscientific nonsense.

        The “Manmade Runaway Global Warming” hypothesis is at least falsifiable, and it has been adequately falsified:

        1. By the ~32-year global cooling period from ~1945 to 1977, even as fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 strongly increased;

        2. By “the Pause”, when temperature did not significantly increase for about two decades, despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations;

        3. By the absence of runaway global warming over geologic time, despite much higher CO2 concentrations;

        4. By the fact that atmospheric CO2 trends lag atmospheric temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record, and by ~~800 years in the ice core record, and the undeniable reality that the future cannot cause the past (in this space-time continuum).

        I suggest that global warming and climate change alarmism, in a few decades at most, will be regarded as a mass delusion, and its leaders and its followers will be widely regarded as scoundrels and imbeciles.

        In summary, there is no real dangerous global warming or wilder weather crisis. In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 certainly improves plant and crop yields, and may cause some mild global warming, which will be net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

        Regards, Allan MacRae

  47. I put more weight on the views of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists (55% do not endorse the “consensus”) They are the experts on the subject matter. The “climate scientists” are social scientists, activists and environmentalists. They have little understanding of physical science. Then the issue of quantity vs. quality. Hundreds of these “climate scientists” do not equal Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson.

  48. Are the satellite findings of global temps split? no
    Is ARGO split on ocean temp signals and cycles? no
    Has debate ended? no
    Does UHI exist? yes
    Does surface station bias exist? yes and hopefully less than before they were called out
    Does the surface record include biased surface station records from before they were removed? yes

  49. Find a controversial topic in society where scientists are NOT split (99% vs 1% isn’t “split”).

    “Glyphosate is safe”?

Comments are closed.