Friday Funny: Andrew Dessler’s Self-citing Consensus

Andrew Dessler with a deer-in-the-headlights look when spotting Anthony Watts at AGU in 2018.

I don’t have a major social media presence. I’ve never even filled out my Twitter profile. One of the the people I try to occasionally engage is journalist and writer Andrew Revkin @Revkin.

I believe Andrew is honest and attempts to be objective but is trapped in a cognitive bubble and can’t even imagine the credibility flaws in the ideologically compromised institutions, in which he puts his blind faith. He is unable to perceive the real epistemological crisis occurring. I haven’t been particularly effective at reaching him as I tend to be Moshesque ala metaphors and brusqueness.

We recently had this exchange.

I started to reach Andrew using a cartoon from @CrustaceanSngls.

The reaction from Andrew was quite encouraging. I hoped he would connect the dots.

Then who burst onto the scene but activist Mini-Mann, Andrew Dessler. He very sanctimoniously poo-pooed this heretic questioning of expertise.

I don’t believe Andrew was expecting this sort of reply.

Another Twitter user jumped in.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/08/09/andy-desslers-bloopers/

There’s lots of Andrew Dessler’s embarrassments at the above link.

Andrew replied as did I, but I did not wish a long drawn out thread. I generally don’t.

So, to sum it up, in 1995, Dessler made a prediction. In 2011, the weather briefly aligned with his prediction. In my opinion he did a premature end zone dance and felt on top of the world. For the last ten years, again in my opinion, he likely is getting more and more bitter about Nature suggesting, leaning to, proving his predictions foolish.

And check out CrustaceanSingles.com

4.9 15 votes
Article Rating
136 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pauleta
July 16, 2021 10:31 am

I am ahead of the curve, I know 21.5% of 21st century climate/weather/crisis.

Scissor
Reply to  Pauleta
July 16, 2021 1:16 pm

I understand that Dessler, Mann and Hayhoe are among a small good that nominate each other for various climate research awards. I predict that this behavior will continue. I predict that they don’t nominate Dr. Curry.

Editor
Reply to  Pauleta
July 16, 2021 2:45 pm

My century started in MMXXI, so I know only 20.5% of 21st century climate/weather/crises. 🙂

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ric Werme
July 16, 2021 6:18 pm

Mine started in MCMLIV but I don’t remember much from back then.
(And much of what I do remember since then they keep telling me didn’t happen.)

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Pauleta
July 19, 2021 10:22 pm

I’m WAY ahead of the curve. I don’t have a Twitter account.

LaKa
Reply to  Pauleta
July 21, 2021 6:13 am

Oops! Temperature collection stations near Republican cities have been determined to be unreliable and therefore require upward adjustment of temperature data values. Although we can no longer state that we knew, pre adjustment, what temperatures were, we can state with absolute certainty that things are far more dire than previously thought.

Gyan1
July 16, 2021 10:34 am

Dessler publicly stated that if observations differed from models the observations must be wrong.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Gyan1
July 16, 2021 1:16 pm

Exactly, that’s science today.

Reply to  Gyan1
July 16, 2021 2:50 pm

Not to mention Santer et.als 2021 paper “Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations”. The et.als include RSS personnel Mears & Wentz. RoySpencers reply on the UAH constraints quoting their 2018 paper “Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric
temperatures used in climate research” aligning UAH trends with radiosonde data and the fact that Santer et.als 2021 paper did not cite Christy & Spencers et.al 2018 paper says it all!

Aaron D.
Reply to  Gyan1
July 16, 2021 9:06 pm

Can you provide a link?

Gyan1
Reply to  Aaron D.
July 16, 2021 11:36 pm

It was several years ago in a discussion. I thought I saved it somewhere but couldn’t find it on a quick look. Maybe Science of doom, real climate, or And then there’s physics. Saw someone call him out on Curry’s website and found the comment to confirm it. Sorry I can’t locate it right now.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gyan1
July 16, 2021 9:21 pm

I know Liar Mann said that. I can find no source for that from Dessler.

Gyan1
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 16, 2021 11:37 pm

It was in a comment thread that I confirmed but don’t remember exactly where because it was too many years ago.

Charlie
July 16, 2021 10:36 am

You already know what the weather of the 21st century is?

I could be wrong but isn’t something like that exactly what people like Dessler are claiming to know?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Charlie
July 16, 2021 10:39 am

No, they know what the climate will do. The weather, that’s something else.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 1:04 pm

He himself used the word weather.
And when one is talking about long periods of weather (over 30 years), that is by definition talking about climate.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 1:43 pm

No, they know what the climate will do.”

Incorrect.
They only imagine they do.
And they have overly vivid imaginations, are delusion fools, and never question how it is they know anything about what they believe in.

IOW…they are the last people anyone should simply trust based on say-so.

Pauleta
Reply to  Charlie
July 16, 2021 10:51 am

I have seen extrapolations up to 2300.

Reply to  Pauleta
July 16, 2021 12:26 pm

The integrated assessment models used to derive the ridiculous social cost of carbon go out 300 years.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 10:37 am

Strong expert consensus is almost always right.

Phlogeston anyone?

DonM
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 11:17 am

I did not know that phlogeston was the principle agent in fermentation….

My favorite consensus success story is about the guy traveling the country for a few years, sticking knitting needles up peoples noses and doing a slow stir/mix of a part of their brain as his novel approach to mental health … he was very well received.

The consensus community gave him a Nobel Prize.

oeman 50
Reply to  DonM
July 17, 2021 8:47 am

I’d rather have a bottle in front of me.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 1:12 pm

Strong expert consensus is almost always right.

I’m not going to argue with this proposition. As a general concept is probably some truth to it. However, in addition to the obvious comment, “almost always” is not remotely the same as “always”, it is useful to distinguish between areas of inquiry. Some areas of science, more settled than others, and despite claims (mostly by the media), climate science is not one of these areas. Expert consensus says that perpetual motion machines are impossible, yet hardly a year goes by without someone claiming to have invented one. This is an area where I feel comfortable accepting the expert consensus and dismissing the claim on its face. Many propositions in physics and even more in mathematics have reached a level of consensus that the likelihood of them being overturned is vanishingly small, but these are areas in which one can exhaustively experiment in the number of “moving parts” is typically small and manageable. Climate science is one of the most complicated areas of inquiry short of TOE, and it is virtually guaranteed that many propositions will be overturned or materially revised in the next few decades.

Steve Case
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 16, 2021 6:10 pm

After a not so short search I find that TOE is probably “Theory Of Evolution”

Is there some reason that people these days use undefined acronyms? Do they think it makes them look smart? Dunno, it’s damned annoying to have stop and figure out WTF it is that they are trying to say.

GRAHAM CLIFT
Reply to  Steve Case
July 16, 2021 7:01 pm

What does WTF mean?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  GRAHAM CLIFT
July 16, 2021 9:29 pm

Wish I could upvote that 1000x

Steve Case
Reply to  GRAHAM CLIFT
July 17, 2021 3:19 am

I put WTF in there on purpose just to see what the comment would be. I get really tired of people reducing everything to an acronym. I wonder how many readers skipped over TOE and didn’t know what it meant and didn’t look it up. It’s not like it’s nearly common knowledge like WTF.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steve Case
July 17, 2021 3:38 am

Theory of Everything is what it has most often referred to.

Steve Case
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 17, 2021 1:15 pm

The Google search coughed up evolution first, but yes “Theory Of Everything” fits much better. Too bad it wasn’t spelled out.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steve Case
July 17, 2021 3:40 am

BTW I immediately spotted your intentional irony re WTF.

MarkW
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 17, 2021 9:48 am

OMG, that was funny

Tim Spence
Reply to  Steve Case
July 17, 2021 5:03 am

Steve, I also get a little perplexed by the acronym overload.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tim Spence
July 17, 2021 1:13 pm

Tim,

Wait until you try to learn how to fly an airplane:

Google search: “List of aviation acronyms

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
July 18, 2021 2:53 pm
Robert Austin
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 16, 2021 7:41 pm

“Strong expert consensus” can be radically prejudiced when big money rides on the “correct” answers. Climate science would be a backwater if not for the manufactured crisis. Science and venality are not mutually exclusive.

Newminster
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 17, 2021 5:08 am

One question is whether the likelihood of consensus being right is still is strong in an era when any post-grad can claim megabucks from the taxpayer to sit in front of a computer screen and make it all up.
One IPCC apparatchik (can’t remember which one) admitted that the “evidence” for climate change wasn’t based on real-world observations but on “the models”.

Meisha Irwin
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 17, 2021 8:10 am

Stephen, you almost certainly accept the impossibility of perpetual motion machines NOT because there is a scientific consensus of their impossibility, absent all other information, but because of the logic behind your belief in relation to the most fundamental knowledge you have about how matter and energy operate, based on your extensive daily experience and that of almost everyone else you’ve ever heard from on the question, not just a relatively few “scientists.”

MarkH
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 3:13 pm

“Strong expert consensus is almost always right”

Would have to be some of the most foolish and dangerous words that could be assembled into a sentence.

David Kamakaris
July 16, 2021 10:40 am

I had no trouble teaching climate change to my students. I told both sides of the story (something our feckless media should do but doesn’t) and allowed them to draw their own conclusions.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  David Kamakaris
July 16, 2021 10:43 am

Be circumspect. You are in danger of being cancelled.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 16, 2021 11:07 am

They missed their chance. I am about to start my 7th glorious year of retirement.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Kamakaris
July 19, 2021 4:01 am

Then you got out at the right time, just a few years before “cancel culture” really started taking off.

Tom Halla
July 16, 2021 10:42 am

Considering the “experts” involved with the environment have fairly consistently made manifestly silly predictions over the past fifty years, Dessler should be more humble. The compilations of predictions made for Earth Day are classic.

Mr.
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 16, 2021 1:28 pm

A well-established and oft used tactic employed by leftists worldwide is –
“never explain, never admit error, never apologize”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 16, 2021 1:43 pm

Yep – and here is a list of all those silly and busted predictions they made https://extinctionclock.org/

Wade
July 16, 2021 10:57 am

The experts are almost always right.

The experts said miasma theory was right. The experts said plate tectonics was wrong. The experts said the sun revolves around the earth. Shall I continue? Saying “the experts are almost always right” has two logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority. It doesn’t matter if 7 billion say something is true, that does not make it true. And with just 3 examples I easily proved that “experts” are not always right.

DonM
Reply to  Wade
July 16, 2021 11:31 am

His statement, through his bias & conceit, is missing the fact that he not omnipresent throughout history. Historically, the correct assessment eventually worked its way out of the argument and the mire. People like Dessler do not have the capacity to understand that he is part of the mire … and that sometime in the future the consensus will likely be correct.

Until then, he should stop advocating harmful policies, based on his unfounded beliefs.

Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 11:00 am

Dessler: ‘strong expert consensus is almost always right’

This statement admits a couple of possibilities.

  1. Dessler is not an expert, since he has been proven almost always wrong.
  2. Since Dessler is almost always wrong, so is his opinion that ‘strong expert consensus is almost always right’ almost always wrong.

Proof of #2: there was once strong expert consensus that
-the Sun revolved around the Earth, cause we could watch do so every day
-fire originated from phlogiston
-cholera was caused by miasma
-light propagated in a luminiferous aether
-and soon, that CO2 caused most global warming because Mann erased the MWP and LIA in his hockey stick handle while fabricating it’s blade.

Unfortunately for Dessler’s expert climate consensus there are some inconveniently dissonant facts:
Climate models run provably hot
Sea level rise is not accelerating
Arctic sea ice has not disappeared
Polar bears are thriving
Renewables are expensive, intermittent, and lack grid inertia
China and India don’t care about Dessler and his consensus

Sad, really, isn’t it. NOT!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 11:37 am

We could add to #2 Lord Kelvin’s erroneous estimate of the age of Earth, which his peers were reluctant to challenge because of Lord Kelvin’s authority. Thus, for at least awhile, there was ‘consensus’ on the Earth’s age.

Last edited 20 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 12:07 pm

“Mann erased the MWP and LIA in his hockey stick handle while fabricating it’s blade.”

And when he was finished, the blade immediately bent to horizontally for 18yrs!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 17, 2021 10:43 am

The mark of Mann turned into the mark of Zorro!

Doonman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 12:23 pm

Ptolomy had a model that proved the Sun and all the Planets orbited the earth at the center. It worked well, could predict future events and was considered “Scientific Consensus” for over 1500 years. If you disagreed with that model strongly enough, the consensus believers would k1ll you. Too bad it was fundamentally wrong, epi-cycles do not exist.

But that’s always the end result for disbelievers. People who cite consensus as truth will always k1ll those who disagree eventually. It’s the final solution to not admitting you’re wrong.

To bed B
Reply to  Doonman
July 16, 2021 3:36 pm

Nobody was killed for it. Copernicus’s system was equally flawed, and that was the final version that had many more epicycles.

A better example is the accepted history that there was a paradigm shit from having the Earth as the centre to the Sun. The real paradigm shift was not using circles. revelations not based on new evidence. Just ignoring politics.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Doonman
July 16, 2021 7:08 pm

Ptolemy’s epicycles ‘worked’ to shore up heliocentric and to ‘explain’ the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. Newton’s physics would have shown epicycles to be impossible.

Today’s climate models are based on precisely the same mode of creation. They have incomplete data and a preordained CO2 Control Knob theory (shame on you NASA for coining this Luddite term) that doesn’t fit the data. The fix to shoehorn climate data to the theory are clisci epicycles, lacking the ingenuity of Ptolemy’s 150 AD model of the solar system, made with no knowledge of modern physics. At least Ptolemy took the observations at face value

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 1:06 pm

Rud,
I only got four sentences in so far, but I am already laughing so hard I need to rest up before I read the rest!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 1:47 pm

TY. It is my new Alinsky rule 5 technique at work—abject ridicule.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 18, 2021 8:01 pm

I am right there with you on that!

pHil R
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 17, 2021 7:42 am

Rud,

I’ve always wanted to bring this up somewhere, and since you mentioned the luminiferous aether, I thought this might be as good a point as any, and would be interested if you had any thoughts or comment.

When discussing global warming, the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2, quite often the discussion include references to Tyndall and his early experiments. However, an interesting history-of-science tidbit that I’ve never seen pointed out is that he tried to explain his observations/results in accordance with the currently accepted theory of his time of the luminiferous aether.

One quote from his 1861 paper:

If we inspect the results above recorded, we shall find that the elementary gases hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the mixture atmospheric air, possess absorptive and radiative powers beyond comparison less than those of the compound gases. Uniting the atomic theory with the conception of an ether, this result appears to be exactly what ought to be expected.

This appears to be a case of both cutting edge (for his time) experimental results being explained by the (ultimately wrong) “strong expert consensus” of his time.

Would love to read any thoughts you might have on this.

Last edited 19 days ago by pHil R
July 16, 2021 11:06 am

Consensus arguments are irrelevant because there is no consensus, nothing even close. The term “consensus” refers to everyone in a group agreeing. Look it up. It takes EVERYONE. There are lots of experts that are skeptical of AGW so there is no consensus, period.

MAL
Reply to  David Wojick
July 16, 2021 12:57 pm

Lastly “Consensus” is not science, when are these moron going to figure that one out!

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  David Wojick
July 16, 2021 8:17 pm

Agreed, David W

The point is relevant – consensus means agreement round. That has never existed. They mean the majority position but there was no vote and no proposition was framed fairly and debated openly.

If I say the majority of scientists in some field agree with some proposition that is not a consensus. That is a bare or large majority.

The Japanese believe strongly in consensus management. They debate and discuss for hours on end. Drives westerners mad. When they reach consensus, everyone supports the decision and works towards it.

There is absolutely no consensus on the cause, magnitude, even the direction, of climate change. The ice cap is growing in both Greenland and Antarctica. There are almost record high temperatures on the West Coast of the USA. There is record cold in the central US, Australia, New Zealand and Siberia. What’s going on? When it is fully understood we can start to claim there is a consensus.

Nicholas Harding
July 16, 2021 11:11 am

This statement needs revision: “Strong expert consensus is almost always right, and people who dispute it are almost always wrong. There are exceptions but those are rare.”

I would add the following:

“Those rare exceptions are always expensive and demonstrative that science should always be questioned; data should always be public. Otherwise, science sticks to positions like Aristotle’s model of the solar system for any number of centuries and puts thinkers like Galileo on trial. And some, because they are so much brighter than the rest of us, think that gain of function research should be financed, with little or no public debate. Many experts don’t survive cross examination. That is why they shy away from it.”

Chris Nisbet
July 16, 2021 11:21 am

“Expert consensus is almost always right”
Maybe, maybe not, but I suppose he says ‘almost’ because of the climate scientists.

Last edited 20 days ago by Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
July 16, 2021 1:27 pm

I’m always in consensus with me, no queston 😀

H. D. Hoese
July 16, 2021 11:30 am

“…as we suffer through the hellish summer of 2011…..”
1. The Vital Signs of our Temperamental Atmosphere
7. Heat waves and Drought: Legacy of a Texas Summer
8. Snow, Cold, and Ice: Winter’s Beauty and Treachery
10. Doing Something about the Weather
4 chapters from Bomar, 1995 Texas Weather, University of Texas Press
Can’t find anything about consensus or preaching, chapter 10 on mitigation. Weather and climate change all over the book, smart enough to know best strategy is how to increase chances of survival. 50s drought still the worst recorded, was there also, and even after reading this one– https://journals.tdl.org/twj/index.php/twj/article/view/6463/6066
Probably similar ones based on earlier historical accounts.

Gator
July 16, 2021 11:40 am

Dessler also once suggested that Pielke Sr resign from the AGU, over his disagreement with their position on climate change. Very scientific! And as Ross McKittrick pointed out, there is a complete list of scientific institutions that have surveyed their memberships to establish their views on CAGW. I have taken the opportunity to reproduce this list…

Want to see it again?

icisil
July 16, 2021 11:42 am

Consensus science is for weak, lazy minds.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  icisil
July 16, 2021 1:33 pm

And grifters looking for grant money.

Aaron D.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 9:15 pm

And ideologues trying to push their political agenda.

Gator
Reply to  icisil
July 16, 2021 2:04 pm

Oxymoron alert!

If it’s consensus, it’s not science.

BallBounces
July 16, 2021 11:45 am

It’s only 2021. The 21st cc. ain’t over until the fat lady sings or, possibly, singes.

Notanacademic
Reply to  BallBounces
July 16, 2021 2:01 pm

I think she’ll shiver before she singes. 😉

Gator
July 16, 2021 11:52 am

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
-Micheal Crichton

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Gator
July 17, 2021 12:50 pm

Nobody invokes “consensus” if a child asks how we know the Earth is round.

John Smith
July 16, 2021 11:53 am

Why bother doing any more science? Just accept the current ‘strong expert consensus’, because it’s ‘almost always right’.

Gary Pearse
July 16, 2021 12:00 pm

Gee, Charles, you are dryer than a Texas drought. Bowing out by yielding to his superior wit was also a wickedly kind touch! He’s a rich target but you left him standing.

IIRC, Revkin’s ire was raised by climategate but world view can be a strong barrier. M. Moore’s outrage over renewables dirty secrets was the same but both, ever so close, never asked the next questions. They are honest but somehow not able to follow thread further (psychological denial?).

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 16, 2021 2:00 pm

I think maybe you might want to watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid again, Charles?
Or at least, this particular scene:
https://youtu.be/w9KBOhPXhds

This is a back alley knife fight at Midnight in gangland.
Or at the very least a bare knuckle brawl.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 17, 2021 1:46 am

A great film, I love the “we got to jump off the cliff scene” that and “I have an idea” Role titles.

Last edited 19 days ago by Rod Evans
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
July 16, 2021 12:45 pm

The consensus view among all the recognized, published experts was that gain of function research on animal viruses at a bunch of level 4 biolabs scattered around the world was adequately controlled and supervised and offered benefits far greater than the risks.

Heck, that probably is still the consensus view today. I haven’t seen any indication anybody is even interested in discussing whether we should reconsider that opinion. I wonder why?

Notanacademic
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
July 16, 2021 2:11 pm

To be fair the last 18 months have been wonderful,so I see no reason to doubt our brilliant leaders and experts. Sarc,

MAL
July 16, 2021 12:54 pm

I know one thing is it is very certain sometime in the future earth will have glaciers again, I also know at this point and time we cannot stop that from happening. Yet our so call betters want us to change our life style because they think sometime in the near future it might get 6 degree C warmer! Something the earth has done many time before but now its and extensional threat. As Ron White put is you can’t fix stupid.

Scissor
Reply to  MAL
July 16, 2021 1:12 pm

On your first point, Earth has glaciers now, and I can go to the top floor and see snow fields in the mountains.

Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 1:02 pm

You can lead a jackass to water, but he will still be a damn jackass.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 19, 2021 9:52 am

I.e. you can’t make it think.

Stephen Philbrick
July 16, 2021 1:03 pm

I’ve had a brief email exchange with Andrew and came away encouraged. To be sure, he is in the warmist camp, but seems open to new information. I tend to be overly optimistic about issues like this but there may be hope.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 16, 2021 1:42 pm

Perhaps, perhaps not. I am in the NOT category. Here is why.
NASA featured his 2010(b) paper wherein he ‘proved’ positive cloud feedback by comparing all sky to clear sky, fitting an OLS positive slope. Only problem was, r^2 was 0.02. Almost perfect random scatter, yet it got published! McIntyre was not kind to either Dessler or the publishing journal.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 1:55 pm

I suspect you two guys may be referring to different Andrews.
Yes?
Stephen seems like he was referring to Revkin, and Rud referring to Dessler?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 2:25 pm

You are probably right. My bad.

Bruce Cobb
July 16, 2021 1:25 pm

In the Climategate emails, it appears Revkin was regarded as someone they couldn’t trust, and to be wary of him. He refused to play their game. Sad that he never delved further into the Climate Scam. Too scary I guess. He could have been the next Woodward or Bernstein.

Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 1:34 pm

So far, no one here who has commented has pointed out a glaringly obvious truth: There is no consensus, except a fake one.
And to the degree there have been assertions of one, they have generally been regarding a weak statement, at best…once one drills down deep enough to get to exactly what question there is even supposedly a consensus on.

Consensus does not mean “majority” in this context.
And it does not mean “substantial majority” either, or anything like that.

It means there is essentially zero disagreement of any merit.

It means, to a close approximation, the same thing as unanimity.
But they do not use the word unanimity because then everyone would immediately realize they were just making it up.

There is no consensus, whatsoever.
If anyone says there is, ask them exactly who is comprising this consensus.
Is it all scientists?
All climate scientists?
What exactly is a climate scientist?
Who is not one?

Who took a poll?
When was it taken?
How many were polled?

Exactly what was the question that was asked during this nonexistent fake poll of a nonexistent fake consensus?
(OK, maybe just ask exactly what was asked…specifically!)

Who was not asked?
What about all of the skeptical scientists?
Is there anything like the poll skeptics took, and got a huge number of actual signatures on a specific question, and did so in a very short span of time?

Global Warming Petition Project

The answer to this last question is no, the warmistas have never ever taken such a tally, or collected signatures of named people regarding a specific question.
EVER!

Just like they never engage in debates anymore, or even entertain critical commentary or inconsistencies.

They never correct past errors, or acknowledge failed predictions.
They never ever speak out against those in the media, or amongst themselves, who exaggerate, engage in panic mongering, or even when people in academia or the media just flat out make stuff up!

There is no consensus, and we concede infinitely too much when we let crap like that become part of a conversation we engage in, without ever even disputing or taking exception to the precepts implicit in the very statements we are disputing!

Skeptics need to do better, IMO, on a number of fronts:

-We need to make warmistas prove what they say even has a basis in reality.

-We need to keep them honest about exactly what it is they are asserting, regarding such questions as:
-whether or not we are talking about climate change, or global warming?

-catastrophic global warming or just warming in general?

-notions such as the present time being the warmest period ever, the rate of warming being unprecedented, the legitimacy of many of the data sets…

…to name but a few.

Some other real and pertinent questions are regarding such things as, why anyone should suppose without evidence that a small amount of warming is dangerous, given we live on a half frozen planet in the midst of an ice age, why are alarmists so ignorant of basic facts of earth history, the true frequency and trends in various weather phenomena, and the long history of failure re a huge number of specific predictions, etc?

I wrote more than I intended to at first, so let me summarize:

There is no consensus!

Last edited 20 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 1:52 pm

In case I was not clear, let me reiterate: There is no consensus.
Whatsoever!

What there is, is a bunch of loudmouthed jerks, shameless liars, greedy rent-seekers, frightened doomsday cultists, and an immense corruption of science in furtherance of the political views of those making the claims.

Last edited 20 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 2:02 pm

Great comment. We perhaps concede too much. OTOH, I also have problems with skeptics who concede nothing, like claiming the GHE does not exist. My recent posts on that, and ECS, and some of the vehement replies illustrate that problem.

I drilled into some of the ‘consensus’ papers when researching Blowing Smoke, but dropped it as an essay topic because they were all so obviously flawed, and there was so much other stuff to attack that was also very flawed but less obviously so. Essay Shell Games did a twofer plus on ‘ocean acidification’, and is just one example of what eventually made the final ebook cut.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 16, 2021 2:26 pm

Thank you Rud, and I do appreciate the kind words.

It is easy to understand why we must all choose which battles we wish to engage in, that is for sure.
For one thing, as you alluded, the blizzard of lies is so dense it is not possible to take them all on at once, or even for anyone to keep all of them in mind at the same time.

It is rather paradoxical, is it not, that it can be more difficult to debunk a dense web of multiple overlapping and interdependent lies, that to effectively challenge a single mistaken notion? After all, in the first case there are many strings one can pull on.

I would not want anyone to take my comment above as a criticism, but instead as more of a reminder. And I need to remind myself with such trains of thought as much as I feel compelled to share the reminder with others.

I am interested in reading through your ebook essays, now that you mention it. I am not sure I know where to find it though.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 3:51 pm

iBooks, Amazon Kindle, B&N whatever, and several other ebook global platforms. Cheapest is Amazon Kindle. And you can download for free the Kindle reader onto an iPad or other reader platforms. I prefer iBooks for annotation functionality (I can flag all my mistakes). Ran out of physical space for more real paper books about two decades ago in two homes. eBooks were a lifesaver as a reader, not just as a writer.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 17, 2021 3:56 am

I like them too.
I have a Kindle Paperwhite and a Kindle Fire.
In addition to ease of reading due to the light weight, always saving your page, ability to size text, read in bright sun or in the dark…ibooks are cheaper, most have a free sample, and there are various flat rate offers…the best thing is, you can buy them any time 24/7/365, and be reading minutes later.

Last edited 19 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 17, 2021 5:57 am

“eBooks were a lifesaver as a reader”

I agree. I’ve gone so far as to buy an ebook even though I have it as a book. I took the book and put it on the shelf and read it on my iPad.

I prefer the iPad Kindle App for reading, versus the Kindle Paperwhite.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 18, 2021 8:06 pm

The iPad is a lot nicer, but it is also pretty darn heavy.
And battery life?
Oy!
For me it depends a lot on where I am and what I am doing.
The Kindle Fire is kind of a happy medium between Paperwhite and iPad.

For most of what I wind up doing with it, being able to hold it in one hand comfortably is what tips the scale.

My iPad is an older one though….maybe they have gotten lighter?

Last edited 17 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 16, 2021 3:00 pm

Well said, Nicolas. I agree entirely and have been saying pretty much the same thing for over 20 years. Hell, even the term being used, “climate change” has no fixed meaning. it’s an appeal to ambiguity … equivocation. Science is meant to have both precision and accuracy, climate change has neither. How can there be any sort of dialogue (or consensus) when everyone has their own understanding of the terms? This entire mess has been specifically orchestrated to avoid facts, evidence and real science based on observation and experiment. People now believe that models can pass for experiment and their output is data.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 16, 2021 3:56 pm

Even if carried out scrupulously the empirical data collection can never solve the problem of attribution IMO.
All that can be determined is whether the effect of added CO2 is on balance dangerous enough to try the near-impossible of limiting emissions and so far the reliable empirical evidence suggests it isn’t.

Last edited 20 days ago by Chris Hanley
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 16, 2021 5:52 pm

empirical data collection can never solve the problem of attribution IMO.

It certainly can’t. Accumulating data is just the start. Before anything else is done they must show a causative relationship between increased CO2 and rising temperatures. So far that has not happened.

What we do have is a world that is now growing more plants and that climates appear to be more benign … better for all life. Few (if any) life forms favour the cold.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 16, 2021 4:39 pm

It is a political equivocation that was applied when “global warming” failed to perform as predicted by these models. And yes, the term is completely meaningless.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 16, 2021 5:56 pm

The warmists and AGW true believers try to keep the language ambiguous, in order to keep the populace off balance … so they can alter the message whenever needed.

John Phillips
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 17, 2021 9:00 am

Is there anything like the poll skeptics took, and got a huge number of actual signatures on a specific question, and did so in a very short span of time?

A short space of time? The Oregon Petition was started in 1998!

Why should anyone care about what dentists, doctors, electrical engineers, physicians and veterinarians think about climate change? The only qualification needed to sign the petition was a Bachelor of Science degree or higher. In fact only 0.5% of the signatories had a degree specifically in climatology or atmospheric studies. Even if you include the disciplines they describe as ‘directly related to the physical environment of the Earth’ you can only get to 12%, fewer than the proportion with a Medical or Biology qualification.
 
And there are millions of B.Scs out there. According to figures from the US Department of Education, approximately 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the polling criteria in the timeframe that would make them eligible. So that’s a massive hit rate of around 0.3%.

And when you are soliciting opinion it is hardly best practice to include a cover letter and faked-up review article only supporting one side of the argument. That alone disqualifies the Petition as a serious survey of opinion.
 
As the newsletter of The Skeptics Society concluded ” through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.
 
See also the ‘Pants on Fire’ rating from Politifact. (other debunkings are available)
 

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Phillips
July 17, 2021 11:20 am

Has Politifact analyzed the various consensus claims? I can’t find it on their website.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John Phillips
July 18, 2021 8:17 pm

You got a lot of details wrong.
The current iteration of the petition is much more recent than you suggest:
“The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.”

And there is good reason for who was allowed to sign on: People like ManBearPig and Obama stating the big fat lie that 97% of scientists blah blah blah…

And stating this after making all sorts of exaggerated claims, which of course implies that nearly every scientist in the world is onboard with all of these exaggerations and made up crap.

Even now many warmistas cite the various scientific organizations as supporting fake consensus.
But none of those organizations poll their members, and none of them consist of only “climate scientists” whatever the term even means.

Many people cited and referred to as “climate scientists” have no credentials or training in any science whatsoever.

So your criticism is another epic fail, from start to finish.

Just another snowflake in the blizzard of bullsh!t.

Last edited 17 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John Phillips
July 18, 2021 8:20 pm

So that’s a massive hit rate of around 0.3%.”

And yet it is over 31,000 more than any such list of signatures gathered by warmistas…EVER!

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  John Phillips
July 19, 2021 4:11 am

How many “climate scientists” have given public support to Michael Mann?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Phillips
July 19, 2021 10:13 am

In fact only 0.5% of the signatories had a degree specifically in climatology or atmospheric studies.

Even Michael Mann does not have degree in either climatology or atmospheric studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

Last edited 17 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 19, 2021 10:03 am

… why are alarmists so ignorant of basic facts of earth history, …

Our schools have failed us at many levels!

Ted
July 16, 2021 3:31 pm

I would say there is effectively a consensus, but that the climate cultists never state the actual consensus whenever they mention its existence.
Based on the data from several studies showing at least 97% of climate scientists agree that:

Humans are adding at least a tiny bit of warming to natural variation.

That is the limit of the consensus, and it is doubtful that Dessler would admit to it.

Reply to  Ted
July 16, 2021 4:37 pm

Ted:
IIRC the AMS did poll their members back in ~2014: about 60% thought > 50% of the
warming since 1950 was due to mankind, and ~30% thought the warming might be a serious problem [I could be mis-remembering this…]. But clearly not near 97%.
People cling to a consensus like one would to a life preserver, especially if your income
[or grants, tenure, fame] depends upon it.
Recent medically related ideas that had a consensus that turned out to be wrong: cell phone cancer, dietary fat, linear threshold for radiation,margarine, stomach ulcer etiology, repressed memories, bone marrow transplant for breast cancer, knee arthroscopy for meniscus tears, kyphoplasty, hormonal replacement therapy… the list can be much longer. All of these had
some degree of peer-reviewed literature backing them. Yet, …oops!
The point is all “experts” need humility. But apparently in the climate alarmist world this is quite hard. I guess when you are “saving the planet” the normal scientific method does not apply.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ted
July 18, 2021 8:26 pm

Ted,
You have evidently not been reading here for long, or you would know that every single one of those consensus studies you refer to, which somehow all came up with the same number, 97%, are pure made up nonsense, contrived hogwash, unadulterated malarkey, or some similar brand of bullshit.

I suggest you start here if you wish to catch up:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/oreskes-harvard-and-the-destruction-of-scientific-revolutions/

And then continue your remedial study with anything from this very long list:
Watts Up With That? – The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Last edited 17 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Joel O'Bryan
July 16, 2021 3:36 pm

Texas is having one of the wettest coolest Summers in living memory. I know that just weather, but then so was Dessler’s 2011 Texas Permadrought.

temp072021.jpg
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 16, 2021 3:37 pm

and the Precip

Precip072021.jpg
July 16, 2021 5:07 pm

Twitter is useless sanctimonious drivel being shoveled from one side of the driveway to the otherside, only to be shoveled back. I canceled my account. Useful content does not pack into 240 characters, or whatever they allow now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy May
July 17, 2021 6:19 am

I never signed up to Twitter. When they first started up they set a limit of 140 characters for replies, and I couldn’t even get warmed up in 140 characters, so I didn’t see any point in my joining. And I’m glad I did. I probably wouldn’t have lasted long on Twitter anyway. They would have banned me quick.

Paul Johnson
July 16, 2021 7:16 pm

Perpetual Texas drought:

Screenshot 2021-07-16 211500.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul Johnson
July 18, 2021 4:06 am

Good one! Yes, we’ve had plenty of rain in our area. We consider ourselves lucky if we get good rain this late in the summer.

John Hultquist
July 16, 2021 8:28 pm

 This from the UN:
“Almost two-thirds of over 1.2 million people surveyed worldwide say that climate change is a global emergency, urging greater action to address the crisis, results from a new UN climate survey revealed on Wednesday.”

Although this doesn’t say so, it seems the question relates to carbon base fuels, CO2, and radiative forcing.

There is a 97% probability that this global emergency consensus is wrong.  

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 17, 2021 4:17 am

All those sub-clauses make that quite a proposition to attract a two thirds agreement. I wonder what the alternatives were?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 19, 2021 10:21 am

Is this two-thirds a measure of the effectiveness of MSM propaganda?

Zeddy
July 16, 2021 9:02 pm

even broken clocks show correct time twice a day…

Brian J. BAKER
July 17, 2021 5:00 am

Emperor Marcus Aurelius “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Brian J. BAKER
July 19, 2021 10:22 am

It seems that things haven’t changed much in two millennia.

July 17, 2021 5:10 am

When one understands that the Church of Warming/Climate is just a denomination of the main religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is the government, then it is apparent that government scientists are little different than the educated clergy of yore when less than 10% of the peasants could read. The clergy provided the “science” of the day of the king’s right to rule by divine providence. The Church then got to share is the plunder of the peasants and the crown avoided the messy use of the sword as the peasants voluntarily gave up their liberty and property. Similarly, there is little difference between Joel Osteen and Al Gore.

Tom Abbott
July 17, 2021 5:38 am

From the article: “So, to sum it up, in 1995, Dessler made a prediction. In 2011, the weather briefly aligned with his prediction. In my opinion he did a premature end zone dance and felt on top of the world. For the last ten years, again in my opinion, he likely is getting more and more bitter about Nature suggesting, leaning to, proving his predictions foolish.”

I have to say that the summer of 2011 was one of the hottest I have experienced in Oklahoma. It was a severe heat wave for sure.

But, we haven’t had anything like that since, so Dessler thinking we were going to see more and more of that has been wrong for the last ten years.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 19, 2021 4:21 am

I think the older you are the less you believe the sort of claptrap Dessler spouts. I’ve lived in Michigan all my life and 2012 was a very hot year. But 1988 was also very hot, and I remember sometime in the 1960s it was extremely hot. If you predict hot weather you will be correct once in a while.

Scott snell
July 17, 2021 5:40 am

My impression of Desser is that he is an anxious, neurotic, mess, hooked on the spotlight, sort of like Michael Mann. Didn’t he predict that climate change would drive humans underground by 2100, or something like that?

If so, then not credible, period.

Sparko
July 17, 2021 6:02 am

You know all their behaviour can be described by cognitive dissonance,.including the arrival of self appointed mind guards to get the waverers back in line.

Robert Bradley
July 17, 2021 9:29 am

Here are my posts on the arrogant and often-to-wrong Andrew Dessler:

https://www.masterresource.org/?s=Andrew+Dessler

Last edited 19 days ago by Robert Bradley
Robert Bradley
July 17, 2021 9:32 am

Malthusianism has always been the consensus–and see what Julian Simon did to the consensus?

Enron was also consensus–voted as America’s most innovative company for many years running. And Enron was banking on the climate consensus too, another story.

Jim Whelan
July 17, 2021 12:53 pm

Robustness of consensus depends upon what kind of claim is being made.

I guarantee that if it’s a politically based or charged claim then the consensus is wrong.

Tom Morrow
July 17, 2021 1:36 pm

Consensus is just another term for religious belief.

Without data and accurate models, your consensus amounts to an opinion.

MarkW
July 18, 2021 7:29 pm

Dr. Eugene Parker predicted the existence of a solar wind. This position was ridiculed by most astrophysicists of his day.
A few years later the first mission to Venus proved that the solar wind existed.

%d bloggers like this: