News release from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
July 10, 2019
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) petitioned NASA to remove from its website the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for global warming. The petition, filed under the Information Quality Act (IQA), points out the major flaws in the studies cited by NASA to substantiate its claim. It requests the agency remove the claim from its website and stop circulating it in agency materials.
While NASA asserts the ā97 percentā claim is supported by a number of studies, CEI contends that claim has major flaws that have been documented by critics. These include:
- Incorrectly categorizing scientists who take āno-positionā as endorsing the view that humans are responsible for climate change.
- Failing to include relevant sources without explanation.
- Failing to match the terms used as the basis for a study to the claim actually made by NASA.
āThe claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false,ā said CEI attorney Devin Watkins. āThat figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientistsā views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public.ā
Under guidance released by Office of Management and Budget in April, NASA has 120 days to respond to CEIās request for correction and its response must include a āpoint-by-point response to any data quality argumentsā raised in the request.
You can read the full Request for Correction here.
NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration, nowhere is climate mentioned. I appreciate that NASA will launch weather satellites, but as well all know weather and climate are two separate entities.
Huh? See https://climate.nasa.gov/ . This webpage is titled “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet”.
I won’t comment on the veracity of what one finds there.
Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I think the comment referred to the fact that climate was not part of the original mission of NASA and is not mentioned in its name.
Itās a blob chasing dollars.
I read the three papers that were supposed to “prove” this 97%.
Well if you have heard of “fake News” believe me these are “Fake Science”
Cheers
Roger
From the Act establishing NASA;
(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space
It is fairly obvious that anyone using the “97%” theme is either lying or ignorant, sometimes deliberately so. The full complaint reviews, and demolishes, the claim.
I thought that the entire point of the scientific process was to design controlled experiments or other procedures to test what is true or not, so that we wouldn’t have to rely upon a subjective belief of what is true. Anyone arguing that X is true because Y% of scientists believe it to be true is a person that doesn’t understand science, or doesn’t believe in it, or both.
Everyone who fails to look at both sides of the argument in a contested case is lying or ignorant.
BTW … I learned as a freshman in HS … that SILENCE is NOT an ACCEPTANCE of a contract.
https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/silence-is-not-acceptance-of-an-offer/
No response, is silence … is NOT acceptance of CAGW. I suppose NASA doesn’t understand BASIC English Law.
Totally agree
Hear what Prof Don Easterbrook had to say on the subject:-
See point 1hr 07m 05s on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk
At last!
Whoooooopie! ššÆš. Itās about time the truth squad forced an end to the lies. Letās empty the ammo pouch of the green terrorists. Hopeful.
The profundity of your ignorance is breathtaking!
“Profundity” and “Ignorance” in the same sentence is mutually exclusive.
I wonder how long it will take to happen – assuming the petition is accepted (which it ought to be).
It’s important that there is an official acknowledgement that the 97% figure is bunk.
commieBob
97% of the lemmings going over the cliff think that they are doing the right thing.
But 120 days to respond to questions about lying propaganda!
The president should be able fire any executive branch employee found lying to the public in official publications…and fired tomorrow, not after waiting for 3 months for the liar to defend the lie.
Yes, this is probably the most successful lie propagated by the alarmists. Especially since it was repeated to the nation by Obama .
Many thanks to CEI for getting onto this one. They should probably broaden their target.
Judicial action on said has been scheduled to be 7th in line after Hillary Clinton has been brought to trial for her treason acts.
Best news I have heard in a long time!
Skeptic NGO’s will have to take the lead. Don’t depend on spineless Republicans, they are hiding under their desks.
There’s a lot of other disinformation regardingclimate science that should be removed from the GISS web site as well as the RealClimate site which is nothing but a GISS proxy promoting alarmist propaganda.
If you withdraw without contesting, then you can claim that you didn’t lose.
If you didn’t lose then there is no reason why the statement shouldn’t go back up as soon as nobody is looking.
Looking forward to NASA defending this position. It should be interesting. More likely though, they will simply withdraw the statement. Everyone looks better and the statement still stands in the minds of many.
If the last paragraph correctly represents the directive, they should not be allowed to withdraw without answering the inquiries.
What a hoot! How great is that.
Excellent news! Hoist them by their own petard.
Don’t hold your breath. The Climate Liars operate under the principle that a lie, repeated often enough becomes the truth.
Yes. From guide book “Mein Kampf”.
Slowly, brick by brick, the colossal structure of CAGW Alarmist claims and lies is being demolished by the hard work of honest scientists and citizens.
WOW!
In my opinion, this is the first cannon shot of any significance to be fired in the pushback to the entrenched Alarmists in the academy and in government.
We can discuss all we want the obvious errors in the Hockey Stick, or even the “Karlization” of ocean temperatures but the average Joe or Jane (or jury) may not have the background to appreciate those problems.
In this instance CEI has laid out a legal argument that anyone can understand, and would be difficult to refute without resorting to ad hominems (cue Dr. Mann).
I can’t wait to hear the responses of the “faithful”.
George Daddis
Perhaps we should brainstorm on similar ways to put pressure on the alarmists who make unsupportable claims.
It’s about time someone formally called bullshit on the 97% propaganda.
97% is indeed incorrect, it is actually 100%. Anyone that disagrees (even marginally/partially) with the extremist alarmism obviously doesn’t meet the definition of a ‘climate scientist’. Ergo…….
OK. I did read the 11 pages of this request.
Extremely well done.
I hope you win.
They should have made one more request. “Please do not include any picture or pictures of Naomi Oreskes in your response.”
Now that’s just wrong.
Made me laugh though.
LoL!!!
If 97% of climate scientists indeed “agree humans are responsible for global warming.,” then that alone would be prima facie evidence that 97% of climate scientists are incompetent.
100% of catholic priests say god exist , given they are the ‘experts ‘ god most therefore exist !
Or is it perhaps a bit more complex than that ?
I like that!
NASA has lost tons of.credibility. This is just one small area of disappointing behavior
Perhaps we will actually have a trustworthy evaluation of the ‘science’ behind the 97% claim.
God bless the Competitive Enterprise Institute. May their honest endeavors be successful in forcing NASA to drop the false appeals to authority propaganda!
The claim that 97% of climate scientists fails a basic maths test for you cannot say what percentage of whole group a subgroup when you do not known what the size of the whole group.
There are two related issues , firstly no one even knows how many climate scientists there are , and secondly this is partly as there is no agreed definition of what a ‘climate scientist’ evenis , while it is termed applied to failed politicians and railway engineers with tourses problems .
Now is it really to much to expect them to meet the standards to correctly know a percentage value, as opposed to the 9 out of ten cats standard , when they are claiming to be practicing science?
The US government also says that the same mechanism that warms real greenhouses causes climate change.
CO2 does not warm real greenhouses, thus the US government is contradicting itself.
Real greenhouses do increase the so-called greenhouse effect inside, but this effect is minuscule compared to the real effect that causes most of their warming, which is the lack of convection.
Exactly. Every time I hear the 97% claim I ask ‘how many climate scientists are there?’
As to your second point, ‘do they put salt or sugar on their porridge?’ (Everyone knows that real climate scientists don’t put sugar on their porridge.)
I would like to ask…what would be the point…or goal…NASA…kr any institution that claims..humans are the cause of climate change….I have read thst this is a way for scientist to make more money onney..or for those that want renewables pushed forward so that they can make $$$$ ….well…I have this this to say….there is no where near…the money in renewables.. that there is in OIL. ..or fossil fuels in general…WHY?? BECAUSE you make real money…from the SOURCE OF ENERGY …not manufacturing the equipment for capturing a free source of energy… sssooo…the other “myth” is that climate scientist . Make up data kr twist data ..so they can get more grant money…weeeelll…ghee I would th I’m k that there are enoug damn research issues out there…even ants..or any biotech sh*t … to study and get grant mo ey fkr… rather than risk your career to make up lies….sssooo all of you here that want to take the chanec… that human induced climate change ..is not a reality …fi e…but trust me .it will co.e back to bite your *ss….too bad I wont be able to see.it…AND do nkt get me wrong. I am ..not a renewable pusher…I have been studying climate change for 25 years… and…there was a poi t in the first few years in which I was all about renewables…but that was when we thought we had ” regular ol’ climate chsnge… you know ..the slow kind thst tskes hundreds kr thousands of years…but sorry to say…I found iut we are no in ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE.. . Sssooo ANY THING we humans try to do now is MOOOOOOT…..WONT AMOU T TO A HILL KF BEANS . why? The Earth jself has now had so many feedback loops. ( which we were warned about) triggered. …that. well we are ssooo screwed.. have a nice life folls.. ..oh wait….it is going to SUCK…
Anyone speak that language who can translate it to English?
Wanda Harding July 13, 2019 at 12:13 pm
I would like to askā¦what would be the pointā¦or goalā¦NASAā¦kr any institution that claims..humans are the cause of climate changeā¦.I have read thst this is a way for scientist to make more money onney..or for those that want renewables pushed forward so that they can make $$$$ ā¦.wellā¦I have this this to sayā¦.there is no where nearā¦the money in renewables.. that there is in OIL. ..or fossil fuels in generalā¦WHY?? BECAUSE you make real moneyā¦from the SOURCE OF ENERGY ā¦not manufacturing the equipment for capturing a free source of energyā¦ sssoooā¦the other āmythā is that climate scientist . Make up data kr twist data ..so they can get more grant moneyā¦weeeelllā¦ghee I would th Iām k that there are enoug damn research issues out thereā¦even ants..or any biotech sh*t ā¦ to study and get grant mo ey fkrā¦ rather than risk your career to make up liesā¦.sssooo all of you here that want to take the chanecā¦ that human induced climate change ..is not a reality ā¦fi eā¦but trust me .it will co.e back to bite your *ssā¦.too bad I wont be able to see.itā¦AND do nkt get me wrong. I am ..not a renewable pusherā¦I have been studying climate change for 25 yearsā¦ andā¦there was a poi t in the first few years in which I was all about renewablesā¦but that was when we thought we had ā regular olā climate chsngeā¦ you know ..the slow kind thst tskes hundreds kr thousands of yearsā¦but sorry to sayā¦I found iut we are no in ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE.. . Sssooo ANY THING we humans try to do now is MOOOOOOTā¦..WONT AMOU T TO A HILL KF BEANS . why? The Earth jself has now had so many feedback loops. ( which we were warned about) triggered. ā¦that. well we are ssooo screwed.. have a nice life folls.. ..oh waitā¦.it is going to SUCKā¦
I’ll have a go at it
Wanda Harding July 13, 2019 at 12:13 pm
I would like to askā¦what would be the pointā¦or goalā¦NASAā¦or any institution that claims humans are the cause of climate change. I have read that this is a way for scientists to make more money only or for those that want renewables pushed forward so that they can make $$$$ ā¦.wellā¦I have this to sayā¦. There is no where near the money in renewables that there is in OIL or fossil fuels in general. WHY?? BECAUSE you make real money from the SOURCE OF ENERGY not manufacturing the equipment for capturing a free source of energyā¦ sssoooā¦the other āmythā is that climate scientists Make up data or twist data so they can get more grant money ā¦ weeeelll ā¦ gee I would think that there are enough damn research issues out there ā¦ even ants or any biotech sh*t to study and get grant money for ā¦ rather than risk your career to make up liesā¦.sssooo all of you here that want to take the chance that human induced climate change is not a reality fineā¦but trust me, it will come back to bite your *ss ā¦. Too bad I won’t be able to see itā¦AND don’t get me wrong, I am not a renewable pusher ā¦ I have been studying climate change for 25 yearsā¦ andā¦there was a point in the first few years in which I was all about renewables, but that was when we thought we had ā regular olā climate change ā¦ you know the slow kind that takes hundreds or thousands of yearsā¦but sorry to sayā¦I found out we are no in ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE.. . Sssooo ANY THING we humans try to do now is MOOOOOOTā¦..WON’T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS. Why? The Earth itself has now had so many feedback loops (which we were warned about) triggered. ā¦that, well we are ssooo screwed.. have a nice life folks.. ..oh waitā¦.it is going to SUCKā¦
Readers digest version
Wah wawawa wah, wawah wawah wa wahh
It’s worse than we thought
Wah wa wa wa wah
We’re screwed
It will be bad
Basic ravings of typical CAGW Psychosis
I read Wanda’s comment as being against the alarmist nonsense.
Read it til the end.
She says it is so bad it is past the point of preventing the end of the world.
…and to think I thought it was a dying language
Wanda – re “there is no where nearā¦the money in renewables.. that there is in OIL” :- the easy money is in subsidies.
And by the way, all Earth’s feedbacks are net negative, so no “feedback loops” will ever be triggered.
Wanda: You are typing short sentences with heavily truncated words. Which means unclear sentences without subjects, action verbs, questions, etc.
Which is why we are puzzled, at least I was very puzzled.
The answer to your questions have been announced internationally.
A) Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), “warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.”
B) “UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (shown) declared that so-called āclimate actionā offers a ācompelling path to transform our world.ā Even your āmindā must be transformed, he said. Many other proud socialists, communists, and globalists have also called for using the man-made global-warming hypothesis to transform the world. And they are not kidding.
In fact, the man-made global-warming theorists in attendance at the UN summit here are working to exploit alarmism over the āclimateā to restructure every aspect of human life. This includes the economy, industry, governance, and even your thinking, Guterres declared.”
C) “Ocasio-Cortezās Chief Of Staff Admits What The Green New Deal Is Really About ā And Itās Not The Climate.
“Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezās āGreen New Dealā is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting{sic} climate change, her top aide admitted.
Ocasio-Cortezās chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Insleeās climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday.
āThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasnāt originally a climate thing at all,ā Chakrabarti said to Insleeās climate director, Sam Ricketts.
āDo you guys think of it as a climate thing?ā Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,ā Chakrabarti added.”
D) James Hansen former Director at NOAA was a confirmed activist including getting arrested at protests.
James filled NOAA and GISS with people who agreed with his vision, happily destroying science along the way.
• Temperature databases have been repeatedly adjusted, without definitive rationale.
• Temperature stations have been installed in the worst possible locations; e.g. airports surrounded by tarmac.
• Temperatures have been altered by using other temperatures from instruments up to 1,200 kilometers away.
This list goes on near forever. The simplistic answer to your question is that government and institutions have been infiltrated by activists who are willing to sacrifice science for their causes. Too many of these activists are strong promoters of socialism; a government model without any successful examples, ever.
Which is why you read about alarmists refusing to debate.
• alarmists vociferously attack critics with ad hominems.
• alarmists collude to prevent inconvenient papers from getting published (read about it in Climategate)
• alarmists refuse to address scientific needs, instead they’re confident that the next propaganda campaign will finally convince opponents.
Which is why the world is stuck trying install alleged renewables that are unable to support themselves without substantial government and taxpayer subsidies.
Wind and solar technologies are so inefficient that tens of thousands of acres of land must be sacrificed for unreliable inconsistent poor quality electrical generators that kill huge amounts of wildlife.
Thirty years have passed since James Hansen and a Senator shut off air conditioning to fake a global warming incident to get the Senate’s attention.
The Earth has warmed a fraction of a degree during this period. A very frightening reality when the situation is that Earth is recovering from a cold period labeled “Little Ice Age” that ended in the 18th Century. Frightening, because Earth failing to fully warm hints that we are sliding steadily into a new glaciation.
Heat has near zero deadliness compared to serious cold.
Thirty years since James Hansen blamed carbon dioxide; and scientists are still unable to prove CO₂’s effect on temperatures. Easily evident in all of the climate models running far too hot.
I guess Wanda has never heard of the two trillion dollar trough from which the climate faithful feed annually.
And clearly there is a virtual vast warehouse full of useful information, of which Wanda knows nothing.
And you are a scientist/physicist, Wanda?
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)ās complaint ordering NASA to remove reference to the ā97% of scientists agree thatā¦ā claims. Basic point is ā¦ āendorsementā is not measure of fact. A large number of scientists (who also are on the payroll) endorse the broad propagandist theme of global warming being caused by humans ā¦. but that does not serve as evidence of fact ā¦ that those people independently have done work to convince them of the fact. One small step for mankindā¦.
The referenced WSJ Op ed by Bast and Spenser is very good, showing how phony the 97% claim is.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980
“…One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. (Oreskes is well known to be a climate activist extremist.)
I wish / hope Trump would consider forming a commission on removing bias and propaganda (in general) in scientific evidence whuich is used or is influential in making federal and state public policy. That would have to also include such things as class lawyers and judges use of expert and emotional testimony vs. actual science in class suits of such things as glyphosphate (Rondup) and Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder containing asbestos. Good luck with that.
Corections… cause..I am typing on my damn phone. .I have been studying climate change for 15 years..and yes..I am a lay person…but. hey…I have made the rou ds…go ahead..make my day and give me a better reason why climate scie tist are…maki g sh*t up…bet u can not…
fine then you will know this…
The basic premise of global warming theory is that CO2 warms…humidity increases…wash rinse repeat
…and says it has to lead to run away global warming
no matter how high CO2 levels got in the past…the planet crashed back into another ice age
what stopped it?
Wanda
It is sad that our tech allows for typing mistakes and sometimes also creates them. It it also sad that some people will criticize others based on a perceived flaw (that tech creates) in their ability to communicate with precision. Autocorrect and spellchecker aren’t necessarily our friends.
That being said…
This graphic from Steve Goddard shows some of the changes made between 1998 and 2017
?w=500&h=355&zoom=2
Note the Cooling of the 1930s and prior and the warming of 1998 to make it warmer than the earlier years
This creates the false impression that 1998 was warmer than the early 30’s and serves to eliminate most of the Cooling between the 40s and 80s. This is but 1 example of how past data has been manipulated to support the orthodoxy…would you like more?
. . . make my day and give me a better reason why climate scie tist areā¦maki g sh*t upā¦bet u can notā¦
Depends on what’s being made up. For example, here’s the official IPCC statement regarding the current state of climate science (or, if you’ve found an update to this statement in any assessment report published after, please let me know):
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the systemās future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”
http://www.thestupidithurts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/TAR-14.pdf
In other words, there’s no observational evidence at present to confirm or deny AGW, at least according to the IPCC. See p. 774 of the report.
sycomputing,
Seems to me this quote is concerning predictions, not confirmation/rejection of AGW.
I thought they were now using model ensembles to calculate their scales of likelihood and confidence levels.
Seems to me this quote is concerning predictions . . .
Which appears to go to my point. If the outcome of any scientific hypothesis isn’t predictable, then it isn’t reproducible. If it isn’t reproducible, then how can it be claimed to be true? Is not good and true science founded upon that which is predictable because it is reproducible?
I thought they were now using model ensembles to calculate their scales of likelihood and confidence levels.
First confirm the hypothesis, then proceed to making predictions from it. One commits petitio principii when one assumes the truth of their conclusion within one’s premises.
Wanda, 15 years, 10 minutes ago you had been studying it for 25 years lol.
Thanks for that Bryan A. Unfortunately it was necessary. I did try, and I did consider it was perhaps written by a child, but then kids have a better grasp of the tech. so I thought it was a person of more senior years. We’re told she is at least 25 y.o.
Perhaps Wanda will try harder next time. I suspect, the best is yet to come. Better hurry though, Wanda. Not much time left you know. (sarc. just in case)
PS: I have made a gender assumption here. If I’m wrong, it’s her fault.
Agenda and money Wanda. A socialist utopia and two trillion dollars annually. What part of this do you not get? You claimed to understand a money connection to motive earlier in this thread?
This is what Iāve been saying here and on WUWT and on Twitter for years, specifically, that the consensus is no more than 62.7% as Cook et al. 2013 Table 4 specifically states!
If you click on and read CEIās representation to NASA, they cite the 62.7% in table 4 as the main plank in their argument to show the 97% is invalid. When I made my comments here, I gave the link to Cook et al. 2013 and cited Table 4ās 62.7%. When I tweeted on it, I linked the paper and included a screenshot of Table 4. In other words, I laid it out on a plate for everyone to see in the clearest possible detail. It attracted almost zero interest.
So why is it that it takes the CEI to generate the interest when presenting precisely the same argument with precisely the same evidence? Yes, theyāre a big organisation with clout, I get that. But if an individual presents an absolutely rock solid case with copious evidence, why does it get ignored? Itās the same evidence with the same huge consequences in terms of debunking the 97% claim.
The moral of this is, judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This couldāve been sorted out years ago. Instead, we have an entire new generation including AOC and Saint Greta spouting the 97%.
CEI is citing and taking advantage of a recent (April 2019) document distributed to heads of government agencies. Take a look:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/M-19-15.pdf
+1
Right, until TRUMP the leftists did not answer to anyone. Accountability did not exist. 2+ years in and he is just starting to provide accountability.
I can’t wait until his second term when he can unleash the hounds.
Thanks, good point. I saw a reference to that within CEIās representation. So they now have the teeth, as provided by Trump via this new, April 2019 document.
And as Drake says of Trump, in a reply to my comment below, ā2+ years in and he is just starting to provide accountability.ā
Watch them respond with, āthere is a consensus within the science community that 97% of climatologists agree that humans are responsible for global warming,ā followed by a poll.
Or perhaps, simply that the challenge raised by CEI is not a scientific one, but rather a poll of opinion, thus not under the purview of the IQA. Itās turtles all the way down.
The 97% claim has the same quality of science behind it that most models (excepting the Russians) have. Hopefully that will be made apparent, and real questions about the assumptions behind the models and projections will be brought entertained.
Another approach would be to “update” the number with a new study, which would show a lower number.
This would force alarmists to debunk their own starting point in order to demonstrate that scientists aren’t gradually moving to the skeptics’ position.
NASA also claims that these are peer reviewed studies. The Doran study was published in EOS which is not a peer reviewed journal. It is a summation of M.S. thesis.
The problem stems from NASA mixing up their climate research documents and putting them in the wrong drawers in the seventies. Those marked ‘Earth’ and ‘Moon’ weather predictions. Someone called Chuck or Scooter put them in the wrong drawers, and now this….
The definition of a climate scientist used by the acolytes is someone who believes that humans are responsible for most if not all of the warming seen over the last 200 years, and that this warming will get much, much worse unless we give them billions of dollars to study the issue.
I didn’t realize NASA was officially pushing the “97 percent” Lie. It’s even worse than we thought.
I’m glad to see their feet are being held to the fire.
Instead of 97 percent, I believe the real number was somewhere close to three (3) percent, with regard to one study anyway.
Hey! Here’s an idea! Why don’t we do a new, honest survey of scientists and see where the percentage falls. By honest, I mean one not controlled by the Alarmists.
Because if the sceptics do a survey the warmists will automatically discredit it as funded by the fossil fuel industry and no one will get a chance to contradict this. Besides, how do we choose who to ask?
And then there is this analysis by Robin Guenier.
http://data.parliament.uk/written evidence/WRITTEN EVIDENCE.svc/evidence HTML/4191
Bad link
Try this one
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191
Bad spacing on my part. Duh.
This works:
Go to WUTU Aug. 25 2015 by Anthony Watts “If Only Lewandowski, Cook, Nucatelli, Hayhoe etc ……
See link @ siamiam 16 from the top @ 8:47.
Thanks for the heads up HS.
Do more! Tell them to put up a retracion in a central location. Copy this to the Whitehouse secretariat responsible. Neither Oreskes or Cook are climate clicientists. One is a historian the other a cartoonist. Make them issue a press release. Get Trump to twitter this.
100% of climate scientists agree that they will be screwed when the truth comes out.
If it was quality control of tiles on the outside of the space shuttle, they wouldn’t be so loose with the figures.
Que Media Matters and all the other Smear merchants under David Brock. I’m sure CEI will be out of business in short order.
Bruce Cobb
Good one on repeating a lie often enough and it becomes a truth.
Financial wizards in Wall Street “bundle” lots of debt issues that are rated below investment grade.
Put enough of this “junk” into another instrument and then they call it “investment grade”.
It was discovered as nonsense in the 2008 Crash.
They’ve been doing something similar lately.
The NASA statement is just plain wrong.
Let’s assume the ipcc position on this is correct that greater than 50% of the warming from 1950 is due to human causes high likelihood. So the warming from 1950 is about 0.5c. Let’s say man caused 0.3c and 0.2c is natural of that warming.
The NASA statement uses the past century. So that’s from 1920. The period from 1920 to 1950 saw about 0.3c warming. So from 1920 to present you could say natural 0.5c warming and 0.3c warming due to man.
The statement is false period
What’s interesting about how they categorized these scientists that supposedly are in the 97% is that this same technique for deriving that number, if applied to this atmospheric scientist’s/operational meteorologist’s discussions as a climate realist/skeptic would include me in that 97% number of climate scientists.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
Hugh? you might think.
Well, I believe probably half, maybe even more of the beneficial warming came from the physics of greenhouse gas warming that resulted from the entirely beneficial increase in CO2.
That clearly puts me in the 97% using the standards of the sources.
We could make an analogy using rain and farmers.
This Spring, too much rain caused severe planting delays of our corn and soybean crops in the Cornbelt. Rain for a couple of months in the planting delayed locations was bad news. It could be stated by manipulating the interpretation/meaning/intent, using these specific circumstances, that 97% of farmers believe that rain is bad without qualifiers…………just that 97% of farmers all agreed, almost universally as the experts on growing crops that rain is bad and then spin that to tell us that when rain shows up in the weather forecast, even when there’s a drought, that farmers expect their crops to face adversity.
I am curious. What do people think the actual percentage is of climate scientists who think
that humans are causing global warming through increased CO2 emissions? My own highly
unscientific survey would suggest that the number is significantly higher than 97%. Even the
number who would accept that humans are responsible for the majority of recent warming would
be higher than 97%. Even this website publishes substantially more blog-posts about articles
claiming humans are causing global warming than ones about articles claiming the opposite.
There is a BIG difference between contributing towards Global Warming versus causing Global Warming.
Hi Andrew,
There is a difference but even taking the second question as āare human activities causing
global warmingā what percentage of climate scientists do you think would answer āyesā.
I suspect that the percentage would be easily over 90% and almost certainly over 97%.
As 100% of scientists agree they don’t know how clouds work, I suspect the honest answer would be “We don’t know”.
I suspect that the percentage would be easily over 90% and almost certainly over 97%.
I suspect the percentage of doctors who believed blood letting was capable of curing what ailed George Washington on December 12, 1779 was “easily over 90% and almost certainly over 97%.”
Unfortunately, their faith in the procedure killed him:
http://blog.yalebooks.com/2015/02/28/bloodletting-and-the-death-of-george-washington-relevance-to-cancer-patients-today/
Here’s another excellent argument outlining why consensus is never a legitimate standard of truth and should be carefully disregarded as such when we do science:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/oreskes-harvard-and-the-destruction-of-scientific-revolutions/
NASA is no longer about science or engineering…they can’t even seem to build a working rocket anymore. It’s all about diversity, and inclusion, and many other politically correct ideas that have NOTHING to do with competence.
If you want to get something done correctly and efficiently, hire a for-profit company to do it and get the HELL out of their way – stop the politics, stop the changing requirements, and stop the complete nonsense. Let THEM hire competent engineers and scientists (that the government cannot seem to hire anymore).
First – I do not like the use of “97%” to quantify AGW consensus. Attaching a number to it only fuels contention rather than focusing on the fact that a large majority of climate scientists agree.
CEI: “In short, 4,014 papers (3896 + 78 + 40 = 4014), expressed or implied a position on AGW….But this total did not include the 66.4% of all papers that did not take a position (4a). ”
Why would anyone include in the statistics papers that did not take a position? That makes no sense, as the CEI paper states further on. Then they say, “The data does not include all climate scientists,
only those that were willing to respond and who explicitly stated they had a position on the issue. As such, this paper does not support NASAās claim.” Um, why? Because NASA’s stats do not represent every climate scientist in the world? It’s called sampling.
The main weakness I see is that the Cook et al. study is supposed to assess consensus for the idea that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW.” Since there were a large number of papers that don’t either explicitly or implicitly suggest that “most” of the current GW is anthropogenic, even if they suggest that humans have an influence, that “most” cannot be determined based on the methods. OTOH, the results certainly don’t reject it, and it seems unlikely that many authors would self-rate their papers in the first 3 categories if they thought humans had a minimal impact.
One interesting facet of the findings is that consensus grew over the study period from 1991 to 2011. It is now 8 years later, and I see no reason to believe that this trend has reversed.
The CEI only in passing discusses the Cook et al. 2016 response to Tol, which, along with several criticisms, points out that ” the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.” Seems to me this is a valid point, one that is largely treated as irrelevant in papers and petitions alleging to reject the fact that there is a consensus among climate scientists. Expertise in climate science should be respected as much as it is in fields like mechanical engineering or economic geology.
I know many would assert that the field has been corrupted by money/politics/power/groupthink/liberalism/(on and on), but when discussing science it makes sense to do so scientifically, and I have seen no good evidence supporting such assertions. So, I’m skeptical, as any good skeptic should be when confronted with assumptions.
CEI: “A correction, informing the public that this prior statement did not have a proper basis
in fact and should not be relied upon, would also help relieve the problems caused by its prior
distribution.” This is not a correction, but a retraction. I wonder what correction would satisfy the CEI? What problems are they talking about, exactly?
I think that rather than giving a number to the level of consensus, which could be debated forever, NASA should adopt a stance like that at the beginning of the abstract from Cook et al., 2016: “The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%ā100% of publishing
climate scientists” – this statement is vague enough that most people should be able to live with it, whether they agree with the majority or not. It doesn’t even say how much is anthropogenic. It is also well-supported by research.
P.S. I just got done reading all the questions and graphs of the responses in Bray and von Storch, 2007. It was quite fascinating, both for the answers given, and for the fact that some of the statements could be interpreted in multiple ways – particularly the one that is commonly used to assess consensus (“Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Climate change in general, or climate change since a given year?) . It would be interesting to see how scientists would answer the questions now, 16 years later.
Silber, it’s called sampling, you say. No it’s not, sampling takes into account all opinions not just the ones you want. Would you believe an opinion poll on say, bringing back the death penalty in the UK, if the pollsters only asked the question of those who identified as “far right”?
P.P.S. “Because the Oreskes study excluded abstracts that did not take a position, it is subject to many of
the same problems in the Cook study. It says nothing about the vast majority of scientists who do
not take a position on the issue.”
Just because an abstract does not reveal an author’s endorsement or rejection does not mean the author has no position.
Cook et al. 2016 lists not just studies of abstract ratings, but several direct surveys that support a consensus.
I think the references cited by NASA is a mediocre subset to choose.
Just because an abstract does not reveal an authorās endorsement or rejection does not mean the author has no position.
Then if your goal is specifically to ascertain an author’s position, don’t use abstracts in your set of evidence.
From the WUWT article: “Incorrectly categorizing scientists who take āno-positionā as endorsing the view that humans are responsible for climate change.”
Where is this the case?
Looking at this another way, if 3% of climate scientists continue to disagree with the con census despite the ire and vitriol aimed against them, then they must have some pretty solid reasoning behind them. Their stand should encourage any genuine thinking scientist to ask themselves if perhaps the 3% have something that should be seriously examined. Of course, you would need to be genuinely interested in scientific enquiry to go this route
The 97% is nothing but speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had the results would have been meaningless. Science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. NASA should stop publish meaningless and incorrect arguments.
From the original study claiming 97.4% (75 out of 77) confirm man made global warming, it is critical that the question be understood. They asked if, from what they have read do they believe that the planet has warmed since ~1850 and is man partly responsible. I want to know who the 2 idiots were that said no.
From the original study claiming 97.4% (75 out of 77) confirm man made global warming . . .
You must not have read the study, since your comment indicates you’re ignorance of its intent.
The original studies confirms nothing regarding “man made global warming.” It cannot. It wasn’t a study regarding the truth or falsehood of AGW.
Rather, the study merely makes the useless claim that a percentage of scientists “believe” the theory. “Useless” because belief isn’t confirmation, else my belief that Christ is Lord makes it true. “Useless” because if consensus were truth, bloodletting would still be the cure for all that ails you.
I want to know who the 2 idiots were that said no.
Those would be the only two who couldn’t be called “morons” for believing something without evidence, as you appear to do.
My post and yours are basically the same which apparently you failed to comprehend. The difference was the extremely low class level of argument and ad hominems. Have a sparkling day.
Wow, CEI, the first non-profit organisation without an agenda. Must be true.
Odd that you should criticize an action of a non-profit based on whether that action fit their overall mission. For what other reason would the organization exist?
Isn’t your comment therefore rather ill thought out, badly reasoned, and consequently useless toward advancing anyone’s intellectual betterment?
Anyone ever asked how many climate scientists there are?