Study: 3% Contrarians Derailing the 97% Climate Consensus

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Russell Cook; According to a new study, the credibility of the alleged 97% climate consensus is so fragile, the 3% who dissent are completely disrupting climate action. And Naomi Oreskes is really important.

Who are the 3 Per Cent? The Connections Among Climate Change Contrarians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021
Laura D. Young and Erin B. Fitz

Despite 97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming, the remaining 3 per cent play a critical role in keeping the debate about climate consensus alive. Analysis of climate change contrarians from multi-signatory documents reveals 3 per cent of signees to be climate experts, while the remaining 97 per cent do not meet expert criteria and are also involved with organizations and industries who make up the climate change countermovement. The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older. As a result, we explore other factors (for example, collective memories and ideological views) that may have also contributed to expert and non-expert views.

Read more: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/who-are-the-3-per-cent-the-connections-among-climate-change-contrarians/A4664E239F0774A37C20FE03689B34DD

One eye catching feature of the study is the number of mentions of Naomi Oreskes. She is given absolute prominence in the presented history of climate science narrative – 17 mentions in the study. Other high profile researchers such as Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick controversy don’t rate a single mention. A significant part of the study is dedicated to claiming people who criticise Oreskes are wrong. (h/t Russell)

So what motivates the 3% to oppose the 97% climate consensus? The authors appear to suggest contrarians are ignorant and biased.

A total of 81 per cent of the climate change contrarians received their highest level of college degree (that is, Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD, or level of degree relative to institution, location, and/or area of study) in 1985 or prior.Footnote 5 The most common time when contrarians received their degrees was the 1970s.Footnote 6 This suggests individuals receiving their degrees within the last thirty years are less likely to reject the climate change consensus. This pattern could be for several reasons, for example: new modeling or other scientific revelations not known at the time climate change contrarians received their degree; changes in how certain areas (for example, meteorology) approach research; or, as we suggest later, the impact of conservatism/neoliberalism on views of science and/or government

Discussion

What motivates experts and non-experts alike to pursue a position on climate change contrary to scientific consensus? The role of conservative politics, conservative think tanks, and industry efforts that make up the CCCM is well documented; however, our findings reveal other similarities among contrarians worthy of consideration.

Neoliberalism emerged as a driving force to oppose government oversight and regulation, largely related to backlash from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and subsequent expansion of the federal government. While tenets of neoliberalism (that is, a laissez-faire approach to the market with a heavy emphasis on deregulation and free trade) would become central to CCCM objectives, the ideology pervaded academic circles far earlier (McCright and Dunlap Reference McCright and Dunlap2011a; Oreskes and Conway Reference Oreskes and Conway2010). In fact, while the ideology is most notably associated with the creation of the Chicago School of economics, it was not unique to just Chicago. Neoliberalism was transnational in nature, permeating into other academic and political circles with the help of several institutions established solely to push this ideology (Mirowski and Plehwe Reference Mirowski and Plehwe2009). As a result, by the 1950s, there was “an all-out assault on virtually every aspect of Keynesian economics” led, most notably, by Milton Friedman (Yergin and Stanislaw Reference Yergin, Stanislaw, Yergin and Stanislaw1998, para. 8). By the 1960s and 1970s, neoliberalism was a prominent theory within economics and other disciplines. As a result, much like collective memories pertinent to older contrarians’ formative years, it is reasonable to believe that neoliberal ideology would have impacted contrarians’ attitudes toward science and government prior to the emergence of the CCCM.

Read more: Same link as above

The funniest part of the study is the authors are both political scientists, who feel justified criticising people they claim are non experts for attempting to contribute to the climate debate, without having the self awareness to look in the mirror and question the credibility and depth of their own knowledge.

4.7 46 votes
Article Rating
273 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 18, 2021 10:09 am

How dare I pointing out the mistakes in climate sensitivity estimates?

https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 18, 2021 10:15 am

Plus… The odds are that the authors don’t have the slightest idea what the so-called consensus is. Most of the disagreement is within the alleged 97%.

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  David Middleton
December 18, 2021 10:17 am

Indeed.

Are “luke warmers” included in the 97%?

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  Paul Milenkovic
December 18, 2021 10:41 am

I’m pretty sure that we are.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  David Middleton
December 18, 2021 11:18 am

Always remember that 97% means in absolute terms 83 climatologists.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Curious George
December 18, 2021 12:04 pm

Exactly:

“97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming”

Doesn’t exist ……. which is appropriate, because neither does a “climate crisis”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Curious George
December 18, 2021 12:07 pm

The 97 percent is actually about 3 percent or less.

The 97 percent claim is a total lie. It’s a trick of statistics.

It’s totally meaningless yet President Obama cited the 97 percent consensus to sell his agenda.

The 97 percent consensus is just like everything else in climate science: A hoax meant to fool people into believing something that isn’t true.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 20, 2021 9:25 am

Outside of these pages, when someone quotes “97%” and I ask what the source is, nobody can answer.

john harmsworth
Reply to  TonyG
December 21, 2021 8:02 am

That’s where that “Oreskes” name should pop up. And then run back into the weeds again, leaving only the scent of B.S. behind. One of the most duplicitous humans on the planet.

HotScot
Reply to  Curious George
December 18, 2021 3:00 pm

Climatologist?

Is there such a person that can have credible qualifications in the myriad expertise that the phenomenon of ‘climate’ encompasses.

I don’t think so.

Sal Minella
Reply to  Curious George
December 18, 2021 4:57 pm

Yhere is no “consensus” in science, and, if

Sal Minella
Reply to  Sal Minella
December 18, 2021 4:58 pm

there were it would be wrong 97% of the time

Reply to  David Middleton
December 18, 2021 10:49 am

And, the way the whole study starts out is an example of the study authors’ comprehension problems. If the objective of the study was to expose who the fossil fuel-funded AGW contrarians were, namely a 100% population that breaks down to only 3% climate experts and 97% non-experts — according to the study’s Abstract text …….. then why wasn’t title of the study, “Who are the 97% among Climate Change Contrarians?” The next question, of course, is if the study authors don’t have any issue with the 3% of contrarians who are climate experts, then they would advocate putting those experts up against the best AGW experts to see what comes out of the pure science debate, wouldn’t they?

No, instead what this study really looks like is a CYA effort designed to shore up Oreskes’ original utterly faulty 928-to-0 100% consensus conclusion. The study can cite Anderegg, Zimmerman, etc ’til the cows come home, but the authors probably couldn’t prove anybody on our side participated in those Anderegg, Zimmerman, etc polling efforts if their reputations depended on it. If they were genuine researchers, they’d try to find out who the 3% minority was in those other faulty consensus studies.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  Russell Cook
December 18, 2021 11:20 am

The best source for “consensus” numbers is the 2016 survey of the American Meteorological Society.

Only 67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and largely anthropogenic.

Even with a relatively low Transient Climate Response of 1-1.5 K per doubling, we are responsible for > 50% of the warming since “The Ice Age Cometh”…

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

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

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.”

ATheoK
Reply to  David Middleton
December 19, 2021 6:41 pm

Only 67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and largely anthropogenic.”

That would be the 67% of meteorologists whose jobs are dependent upon singing the climastrologist alarmist song.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  David Middleton
December 18, 2021 3:32 pm

And they would never admit that…

The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older.”

represents people who cant be fired for publicly voicing concerns over their analysis of climate science today.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 18, 2021 3:39 pm

More importantly… It includes people who remember That 70’s Climate Crisis Show…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/24/that-70s-climate-crisis-show/

Kazinski
Reply to  David Middleton
December 18, 2021 3:37 pm

The skeptics are calling from inside the house!

Mike Sexton
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 18, 2021 10:33 am

You bad boy, fifty lashes for you

Duane
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 18, 2021 5:20 pm

Fretting over the so-called “3%”? As Shakespeare wrote, “Thou dost protest too much.”

fretslider
December 18, 2021 10:20 am

Has Oreskes thought of running for office?

She is better suited to politics than science

Are Mann, Oreskes etc cardinals in this new religion?

Mr.
Reply to  fretslider
December 18, 2021 10:29 am

Not cardinals –
dogma enforcers.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mr.
December 18, 2021 11:03 am

Inquisitors

Mr.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 1:50 pm

No, they’re not interested in asking any questions – they assert that they already have ALL the answers.

William Capron
Reply to  Mr.
December 18, 2021 8:45 pm

No, more like the vice police of Islam … and make no mistake about it, they would be just as cruel.

Reply to  fretslider
December 18, 2021 11:03 am

If that first question was posed straight to her, my guess is that she would honestly say she could be more effective behind the scenes in politics rather than out in front. And as I detailed back in 2017, one House Rep said she was already behind those political scenes. Since she’s subsequently been a go-to source for no less than NY Rep Ocasio-Cortez, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Oreskes’ political manipulations are perhaps on the huge side that nobody otherwise is aware of.

Last edited 30 days ago by Russell Cook
Reply to  fretslider
December 18, 2021 12:32 pm

I thought our governments were just utterly incompetent and corrupted, based on their gross mismanagement of the alleged Climate Crisis and the Covid-19 illness.

For example, they keep repeating the same harmful and ineffective measures to “Fight Global Warming” (and to “Fight Covid-19”), and expected a better result. Their conduct appears utterly imbecilic.

In these videos, Dr Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, and Dr Mattias Desmet have a different hypothesis regarding the authorities’ misguided approach to Covid-19 – they say the authorities, media and much of the public are mentally ill – affected by “Mass Formation Psychosis”. The same principles and observations apply to the mass delusions about the alleged Climate Crisis.

Their hypo explains why governments are impervious to facts and logic. Perhaps Dr Malone and Dr Desmet are correct.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 18, 2021 4:16 pm

The our leaders aren’t impervious to facts & logic, it is just that the lies give them power & money.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
December 18, 2021 6:29 pm

Thank you Thomas. I posted this hypothesis to gauge reaction.
I received other responses online, including an insightful analysis from a knowledgeable friend who works to salvage badly-abused children..
I responded:
“An erudite analysis, thank you. I agree with you – the perpetrators know exactly what they are doing.”
As I’ve written many times before: “Wolves stampeding the sheep.”

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 18, 2021 8:31 pm

Here is that “erudite analysis” I mentioned above, published with permission. The principles are the same for Climate and Covid – global scale frauds perpetrated by scoundrels – wolves stampeding the sheep.

This is what I think. The mass psychosis only applies to the “masses” of people – not the perpetrators. Our public officials and medical establishment, universities, College of Physicians and Surgeons, traditional media, etc are perpetrators. They were involved and received incentives.
The masses were so infused with fear that it placed them in the same psychological situation as our children from trauma. Like these children that come to us from abuse and trauma, our masses of people have been placed in such a state of fear that they too are only using the limbic or lower part of their brain and not the cerebral Cortex where critical thinking and reasoning is located.
I have worked with these kids for 20 years and as long as they remain in a state of “fear” they learn nothing, everything is directed to survival through fear and that engages the lower part of the brain (i.e. the fear-fight/flight/ survival centre).
 At ___ , we have to create “safe” environments to move them out of the flight or fight state and into a place of safety then they begin to learn because they move up to the higher reasoning centres. (Only one part of the brain is engaged at a time.)
Basic brain science. 
I think the only way to stop it is to give everyone a “pill” (i.e. Ivermectin) and then tell them they are now safe as they can no longer “catch” it.
I doubt by this time that they can “think” their way out of it. They are watching soccer players die on the field, seeing friends getting myocarditis, seeing neurological damage, hearing about 31 stillborn in a 24 hour period in Vancouver – and still nothing. They will not be able to move out of it and some will go as far harming their kids with the Covid-19 injections, falsely believing that they are helping them. 
The only solution is not their “fear of totalitarianism” – it is their “fear of dying.” If they get a treatment (i.e. Ivermectin pill) marketed to them as the miracle cure – and are told they will now not die – then they will stop harming themselves. They will move out of the limbic-fear centre of the brain and re-engage with executive reasoning.
 

pigs_in_space
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 19, 2021 1:21 am

The Matthias Desmet video is spot on.

It also is astonishingly relevant to how Putin got where he is now, the means to control the population and the hypnosis he and the hold the 100% state controlled media has on modern Russia.
A true genius anesthetistist, con man & KGB trained liar.

Such states are the new model for western governments.
This is of course is why they are so permeated by marxist ideology (though being in denial) and inept at providing any alternative to the new trend to totalitarian idealism.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 19, 2021 8:13 am

“Whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away , and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to common Refuge , which God hath provided all Men , against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties and Estates of the People; by this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty”
John Locke

To me this is a fundamental Right of the people that all Western governments are established upon. And I am tired of seeing these lawsuits against tyrannical actions try to strike down mandates and laws on some technicality. Every challenge in court should go right down to the basic human rights issue and have the government try to explain how they are not governing through fear and corruption.

Antonym
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 18, 2021 6:58 pm

the plutocracy doesn’t like any thing less than 100% con-sensus on any topic, be it climate or vaccinations. Their first bastions were North Korea and PR China.

That how they lived on Pluto and on their now on their yachts on Earth.

Federico Bär
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 19, 2021 6:32 pm

Having listened to Dr Mattias Desmet In two other interesting interviews as well, I find him most credible. Contrary to the Global Warming Narrative, Dr Demet’s argumentation is easy to follow, convincing.
.-

Vuk
December 18, 2021 10:20 am

Who are the 3 Per Cent?
You can find your answer in the table below

IQ score ranges as % of population
130 Very gifted 2.1%
121-130 Gifted 6.4%
111-120 Above average intelligence 15.7%
90-110 Average intelligence 51.6%
80-89 Below average intelligence 15.7%

Last edited 30 days ago by Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
December 18, 2021 11:49 am

My IQ represents only 0.1% – a totally negligible minority in science 😉

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 18, 2021 2:21 pm

Medic?

Jim Clarke
Reply to  Vuk
December 18, 2021 3:23 pm

Psychologists have discovered that IQ has very little impact on one’s susceptibility to indoctrination, ‘mass formation’ and controllability. People with high IQ’s are just as likely to fall for a psyop as any other group, because the real factors are emotional, and have nothing to do with the intellect.

Reply to  Jim Clarke
December 18, 2021 4:10 pm

“Psychologists have discovered” .. probably the same ones doing climate psychology 😉

saveenergy
Reply to  Vuk
December 18, 2021 4:43 pm

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin

M Courtney
Reply to  Vuk
December 18, 2021 5:02 pm

Actually the 3% are thermometers.
They refuse to agree with the climate models.

Climate believer
December 18, 2021 10:20 am

“…without having the self awareness to look in the mirror and question the credibility and depth of their own knowledge.”

as a true scientist would… this guy new a thing or two…

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

Feynman of course.

Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 10:22 am

“the 3% who dissent are completely disrupting climate action.”

absurd- you can’t find any mention of climate skepticism in the MSM- and it’s seldom mentioned by politicians, even conservative politicians- I think the fear of the 3% is because the “green machine” isn’t getting everything it wants and has to blame somebody, but not the public which doesn’t care to pay for it

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 11:32 am

If 3% are able to disrupt your movement, then it wasn’t much of a movement to begin with.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2021 11:57 am

If that 3% can disrupt your movement without any kind of media coverage, then your movement is probably from the bowels.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 3:42 pm

The climate crisis is a pandemic of the unconvinced. The 3% are keeping us from reaching climate nirvana because of their heresy.

Sound familiar??

Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 10:24 am

“This suggests individuals receiving their degrees within the last thirty years are less likely to reject the climate change consensus. This pattern could be for several reasons…”

Maybe it’s because older people are wiser!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 10:32 am

Based on my kids experiences at college, it is because the last 30 years has been nonstop indoctrination based on the IPCC cabal.

Paul S.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 10:38 am

Indeed!

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 4:18 pm

Indoctrination in the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy,
which is the Rule of Government “Experts”.

Reinforced by penalties for not “believing”,
such as ridicule, character attacks, cancellation, etc.
… and censorship of contradictory information
by the mass media and social media.

Once you believe “the experts”,
the subject does not matter.

You believe the “official” climate claims.
You believe the “official” COVID claims.
You believe Trump Russia collusion.
You believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

This can happen to people
who attended college
in the 1960’s and 1970s too.
And people with high IQs,
should know better.

I personally hate anything “official”,
and would never buy a used car from
a politician or a government bureaucrat !

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 4:43 pm

Rud, the new Alberta school curriculum supposedly gives equal time to natural causes of climate change.
If true not a moment too soon.
Unions and the left are lighting hair on fire, I suggested gasoline
Although green hydrogen may be better

JeffC
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 11:53 am

When I studied for my science degree 50+ years ago we were taught how to think. We were not taught dogma. Don’t these people realise that ‘scientific concensus’ is an oxymoron?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JeffC
December 18, 2021 12:13 pm

Apparently, they also think one stops learning after leaving college.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 20, 2021 9:36 am

nowdays one stops thinking after entering college

Fran
Reply to  JeffC
December 18, 2021 5:37 pm

Even 50 years ago there were problems in science education. My synthesis of acetylsalicilic acid did not come out very well, so in the lab report I wrote about what could have gone wrong. I got a lower grade than those who just put down the numbers they were supposed to get. (Those are the ones who went to medical school).

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 1:37 pm

“To determine which individuals in our list are climate experts, we applied criteria used by Anderegg et al. (2010), which set a minimum of 20 climate-related, peer-reviewed publications as the base to establish expertise…..We use the term “contrarian” to describe individuals “who vocally challenge….Anderegg et al. ( 2010) evaluated peer-reviewed climate science papers and multi-signatory documents to find 97 to 98 per cent of top climate researchers agree with the consensus;….”

I remember reading Anderegg and wondering how something that statistically inept could get in PNAS. Of course I was in the old group, learned our stats the hard way. I wasn’t vocal however, at least in what I presume to be their statistical criteria. When asked I never said yes or no or maybe, just evidence I knew about, often prefaced by such question and answer is not about a “belief.”

And as now about PNAS, another paper not in my field except I did drive today, is also easy to evaluate downward. Health benefits of decreases in on-road transportation emissions in the United States from 2008 to 2017. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2107402118

Kevin McNeill
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 1:43 pm

Or maybe it’s because we’ve seen it all before.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Kevin McNeill
December 18, 2021 4:18 pm

And again, and again, and again…..

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 18, 2021 2:20 pm

The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older.

There was a time when society looked up to older people for the wisdom that they had gained from experience, and from the ‘school of hard knocks.’ Now that is looked upon with disdain. Those with ‘participation trophies’ think that attendance at schools with reduced admission standards, and inflated grades, are smarter and wiser than those who came before them. It is a form of institutional arrogance that will not serve them well.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 18, 2021 5:05 pm

Over fifty years ago I discovered how stupid university students could be. Despite the explosion of knowledge and easy accessibility, many (most?) students today are even worse. Few would get into university if they had to pass an elementary admission test in logic. However, I cannot discriminate and must say the same should apply to our politicians.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
December 18, 2021 6:47 pm

MiD,
We had a Ph.D. person apply for a science job that we advertised.
Trouble was, person was so clever that the application letter for the job had no contact details, not even the name of the University – and used an abbreviation for Christian name so we could not even work out gender. And that was in the days when there were but 2 genders, a recognized Christian religion and evidence of a good education to gain a science job. Geoff S

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
December 19, 2021 10:51 am

And some universities are even dropping the classic admission aptitude tests! Anybody who can read well enough to fill out the admission application (or knows someone who does) can presumably warm a seat and apply political pressure to reduce the standards sufficiently to allow them to pass their courses and graduate. They might as well just issue diplomas along with birth certificates and apply an education tax to keep educators paid whether they teach or not.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2021 1:32 am

You are wrong!
It will serve them brilliantly.
In today’s society the grumpy old fogeys were always wrong, talking old hat and that favourite term “ranting”.

The new generation do lots of finger pointing, and when in doubt start twittering, f..ckbooking, and getting 1000s to “like” what they say to get their kick out of being “relevant”, and faking consensus.

Consensus amongst this new society is just group think.

It gives makes them greatsuccessful consumers, with high earnings, and material wealth far beyond what our parents could dream of, (so they say – WE ARE SUCCESS, you are nobody!!)…all on the back of fractional reserve banking and an entire life based on credit, and loans pure magic on paper, by the ‘fair weather friends”…THE BANKS!

Don’t forget it was AMERICAN BANKS that made the finance available to Nazi Germany.and American racial theories that made them justift carrying them out.

Follow the funny money, it doesn’t make funny reading.

Tom Halla
December 18, 2021 10:26 am

Pointing out that the mole on the Emperor’s ass looks like a melanoma is rude.

Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 10:28 am

The authors here make several big mistakes.

  1. They start from the long since discredited 97% consensus myth.
  2. They claim Naomi Oreskes is an expert. Her PhD is history of science, so by their own definition she is not.
  3. They analyze the 3% and find them all old and obsolete and not expert climatologists. Well, I am old, not obsolete, and have published one and a half books on the topic.
  4. They ignore that the climate experts and their ‘consensus have been repeatedly and abjectly wrong: Viner 2000 ‘children won’t know snow’; Wadhams 2012 ‘Arctic summer ice free by 2015’; NASA every year ‘sea level rise accelerating’. Nope, nope, and nope.
  5. They think the problem is consensus communications, rather than the failures of what the consensus has communicated. As Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Unwise to keep trying to do so.
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 12:18 pm

“The authors here make several big mistakes.

They start from the long since discredited 97% consensus myth.”

Exactly! It’s just like everything to do with alarmist climate science, it’s a lie.

Lies are all the alarmists have. The 97 percent consensus is a Big Lie. It’s not even close to 97 percent, it’s more like 3 percent or less.

nyolci
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 12:30 pm

You’re wrong on all counts.

  1. The 97% consensus “myth” is not discredited. The attempts to discredit it have been discredited, of course.
  2. They never claim Naomi Oreskes is an expert. They use her metastudies.
  3. You are not counted among the experts.
  4. Neither climate experts nor their consensus have been wrong. You cite some long debunked canards or newspaper talk.
  5. They don’t think this is consensus communication. They think the problem is large scale, well funded “contrarian” misinformation. And again, the consensus is correct.
Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 2:17 pm

What utter cobblers.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 2:24 pm
  1. Source? Cook’s paper and methodology have been thoroughly debunked several times in peer reviewed literature, for example by Tol.
  2. Can you read? Merchants of Doubt was NOT a meta-analysis.
  3. Never said I was. Said I had published 1.5 books on the subject. How many have you researched and written on the subject?
  4. I gave three specific examples, all easily verifiable. You claim Wadhams never predicted the summer Arctic would be Ice free by 2015? But he did; it’s a matter of public record.
  5. Large scale contrarian misinformation. So, renewables don’t require subsidies, aren’t intermittent, and provide grid inertia?

You did not bring your A game to your provably laughable ‘rebuttal’.

nyolci
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 3:08 pm

Source?

Eg. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm But anyway, the original study wasn’t “debunked” in any scientific journal.

Merchants of Doubt was NOT a meta-analysis.

Perhaps, but no one claimed that was climate science either (eg. your original claim).

Never said I was [climate expert].

But you surely implied 🙂

Said I had published 1.5 books on the subject

Yep, but these are completely irrelevant since you’re not an expert. Just as my (nonexistent) publications in climate science.

I gave three specific examples

Two was plainly wrong, a third was from what a scientist said in an interview, furthermore, this projection was entirely (and scientifically) justified at the time he said that.

So, renewables don’t require subsidies, aren’t intermittent, and provide grid inertia?

Hm, how are these relevant to climate science? Do you think climate is not warming because you feel fossils are hard to replace? (It is almost irrelevant that your claims are well overblown, of course.)

Rud Istvan
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 5:25 pm

Rule 1 of holes, when in one wanting out, stop digging Nyolci. So, on point 4 you concede Wadhams but not Viner (in Scotland, where it just snowed), or NASA SLRA, where per NASA even new ‘bird’ is not fit for purpose Sentinel6. Per long record dGPS land motion corrected tide gauges, it hasn’t. See my previous post, ‘SLR, Acceleration, and Closure’ for fact details you obviously lack.

And, you did not respond about how many published books on climate change you have written. Just wanted to check out your exhaustive credentials here. Pretty please. /S

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 5:39 pm

this projection was entirely (and scientifically) justified”

This is your misunderstanding on what “scientifically justified” actually means. Models are not scientific justification, especially today’s models that contain fitted components (eg clouds)

To be fair to you, many scientists who ought to know better dont understand that either.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 4:00 pm

I’ve asked nyolci to provide evidence to support his claims, it’s response is that it doesn’t need to provide evidence because everyone who matters agrees with it.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2021 5:06 pm

because everyone who matters agrees with it

Correction: everyone who is an expert. These are not arbitrarily picked people. Not a Rud Istvan who wrote “1.5 books” without any qualification. This is a profound difference. Furthermore, whenever I do provide evidence (and pls note I did above) you either pretend it doesn’t exist or completely misunderstand it.

Ruleo
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 9:57 pm

How do you go through life arguing that 2+2=5?

Do you really believe what you say or….

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Ruleo
December 19, 2021 1:37 am

Winston Smith…… O’Brien interrogation in the Minstry of Love

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 5:06 pm

So tell us about your expertise Nyolci?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 7:08 pm

You are wrong on one point. That was his A game.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 2:26 pm

They think the problem is large scale, well funded “contrarian” misinformation.

Do you really believe that all of us skeptic commenters and authors here are being paid by someone? If so, I have a bridge for sale that I would like to talk to you about.

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 18, 2021 5:10 pm

all of us skeptic commenters and authors here are being paid by someone?

Of course not. You are the filler material, the stuffing. You are the result of decades of neoliberal propaganda, and these guys (the real well paid ones like Watts) use you as musical instruments to make loud noises, exploiting your prejudices.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 5:42 pm

You are the filler material, the stuffing. You are the result of decades of neoliberal propaganda”

The Irony. It burns.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 7:58 pm

Some people like to categorise others into various pigeon holes. Neoliberal (what does that even mean), socialists etc.
I keep things simple. Only two categories for me to use, ‘dickhead’ or ‘not dickhead’.

nyolci
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
December 19, 2021 1:55 pm

Some people like to categorise others into various pigeon holes

Well, perhaps because your (“skeptics”) political affiliations are so obvious 🙂

pigs_in_space
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 1:39 am

Or some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves, and reaching conclusions that make sense, rather than having their brains f..ckd up by the BBC, the Grauniad and the mass media.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 11:07 am

And what gives you the right to insult me and others here like that? Anthony did not recruit me. I see his website as a much welcome opportunity to correct errors of fact and outright lies about something I feel strongly about. Namely, the corruption of the Scientific Method to advance a political agenda. I don’t get my comments deleted here like on The Conversation.

You show up using multi-syllabic words, pretending to be intelligent, and offer nothing to support your claims other than insults. You are the quintessential liberal who is so impressed with your assumed superiority that you feel no responsibility for backing up your claims with evidence. As to my evidence for the kind of person you are, I cite your insults and lack of evidence for your assertions.

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2021 1:59 pm

And what gives you the right to insult me and others here like that?

My mom always told me I shouldn’t lie. So I guess she is responsible.

Anthony did not recruit me

Exactly. It’s not needed.

offer nothing to support your claims other than insults

Well, this is not true. Okay, I admit I like insulting you. But I have given evidence. Not necessarily in this particular thread, but I’ve taken part in a lot of debates here, and I really try to give evidence.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 5:50 pm

As the old saying goes … If your mother told you to stick your head in an oven would you?.

Secondly without evidence then anything in this sort of discussion is bullshit and pulling the I have shown it before card does not cut it.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Paul
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 3:10 pm

bullshit !

HotScot
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 3:14 pm

Define ‘expert’.

“Neither climate experts nor their consensus have been wrong. You cite some long debunked canards or newspaper talk.”

Define ‘climate experts’.

Individuals have specific skills in specific areas of science relative to climate, but not one person on the planet is skilled in all the sciences relative to climate. Therefore, there is no such thing as a ‘climate expert’.

Laughably, it’s the most self delusional expression ever conceived.

nyolci
Reply to  HotScot
December 18, 2021 5:35 pm

Define ‘expert’.

Scientist.

Define ‘climate experts’.

Climate scientist.

not one person on the planet is skilled in all the sciences relative to climate

This is a “truism” 🙂 Something that is true but completely useless. Well, the same applies to Physics or any other STEM field. And what? We have Physicists, Chemists etc.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 1:45 am

No but we have scientists of the ilk of Richard P. Feynman who dared to say “I don’t know”.

His idea of a poisonous consensus (the 97% eh?) was being forced to take a Nobel prize, which he didn’t want….except his friends turned around and said, it will create more of a row if you don’t take it than if you do….

Ie. if you can’t prove the results match the theory, you are WRONG.

nyolci
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 19, 2021 2:11 pm

No but we have scientists of the ilk of Richard P.Feynman who dared to say “I don’t know”.

Excuse me, but what is your point? Scientists don’t claim the know everything. But when they do claim knowledge, that is not something you can just dismiss out of hand. By the way, I would be very careful citing Feynman, he was known for his contempt towards those who peddle pseudo-science, like you “skeptics”.

HotScot
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 3:12 am

Define ‘expert’.

Scientist. – That’ll include Lindzen, Cook, Spencer etc. Thanks for your confirmation.

Define ‘climate experts’.

Climate scientist. – Is there a qualification from any reputable university in the world which says ‘climate scientist’? No, because no one could possibly master every every skill required in a lifetime.

not one person on the planet is skilled in all the sciences relative to climate.

This is a “truism” 🙂 Something that is true but completely useless. Well, the same applies to Physics or any other STEM field. And what? We have Physicists, Chemists etc. – It’s only “completely useless” because it shreds any argument you can possibly present for a ‘climate scientist’.

nyolci
Reply to  HotScot
December 19, 2021 2:14 pm

Is there a qualification from any reputable university in the world which says ‘climate scientist’?

I don’t know, and I don’t care. This is a bullshit question. This field is quite narrow so if there were no formal education in this, that would be completely understandable. Be careful though, the “vicinity” of the field is large and there is education in that, like meteorology.

not one person on the planet is skilled in all the sciences relative to climate.

This is definitely not true.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 11:12 am

Climate scientist.

So, Michael Mann is not ‘climate scientist’ because his PhD is in geophysics?

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2021 2:15 pm

So, Michael Mann is not ‘climate scientist’

Yes he is. Sorry, I didn’t claim you have to have a certain type of degree.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 5:09 pm

ROFL if taht is your expert then you really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 3:58 pm

1) I know that is what you are taught to believe, but as usual, what you believe and what is true have no relationship.
2) I see that you failed to actually read the article once again.
3) Just because someone disagrees with your religious convictions, is not evidence that they are wrong, or even that they aren’t an expert. BTW, You don’t have to be an expert to spot BS.
4) Not a single prediction made by climate scientists has ever proven true. The claims that CO2 is the primary driver of climate has been utterly disproven.
5) Ah yes, the standard well funded opposition lie. The vast majority of climate realists are self funded. the billions being spent on the climate warming scam don’t exist in what passes for your mind.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2021 5:30 pm

I know that is what you are taught to believe

🙂 Everyone was taught to believe “this”. But this is beside the point. Experience has taught me to believe the experts. Anytime I’ve had to get familiar with any domain I’ve discovered how vast the experts’ knowledge is compared to mine in the domain. Laymen like you are usually so clueless they can’t even assess how profoundly they are out of touch with the particular field.

I see that you failed to actually read the article once again.

🙂 How about you? The original article never claimed Oreskes was a climate scientist.

Just because someone disagrees with your religious convictions

??? I wouldn’t call atheism a religious conviction. Okay, now seriously, most of you are just random guys bsing in a blog, including Istvan. You are no experts. Most of you don’t even have a degree like you or Watts. Or your degrees are irrelevant to the field (like that of Istvan’s; not even STEM).

Not a single prediction made by climate scientists has ever proven true

You have serious problems with reality.

The vast majority of climate realists are self funded

You even pay for it. Congratulations.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 6:57 pm

 Experience has taught me to believe the experts.

Poor old nyolci. He knows not of what he believes.
2 experts disagree….What to do, what to do???

“Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.” – Euripedes

You have no experience nyolci, you make that abundantly clear with your above quote.

nyolci
Reply to  Mike
December 19, 2021 2:20 pm

2 experts disagree….What to do, what to do???

Again, you “skeptics” are incredible. So what happens when 2 experts do agree? According to you, that’s meaningless, that would be the dreaded “consensus”. Either way, we are doomed, right? 🙂 All in all, you can’t even coherently formulate what you would believe.

You have no experience nyolci

Sorry, but not a random Mike from the comment section is the right person to judge this.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 6:23 pm

 So what happens when 2 experts do agree?”

You judge them on the validity of their ”agreement.” But you need to answer my question. How do you determine which expert is correct?

” According to you, that’s meaningless, that would be the dreaded “consensus”.”

Meaningless? Not exactly but in this case, not enough.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 1:48 am

This must be a sock puppet for GRIFF.

“Experience has taught me to believe the experts.”..

the eggspurts being the BBC, the BBC “fact checkers” the mass media, F…ckbook fact checkers and the Grauniad…+ Let’s not forget dear Princess nut nutzz with the 2nd sprog.

nyolci
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 19, 2021 2:23 pm

This must be a sock puppet for GRIFF.

No, and I don’t know him. Or her. I don’t even know that. Likely “him”.

the eggspurts being the BBC

BBC is the propaganda channel of the British, and more broadly, of the Anglo ruling class. I certainly don’t give a flying fcuk about what they say. Facebook is even worse. etc. Are these the best accusations you could come up with? Very very poor.

Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 3:36 am

Experts are not dependant of a scientific title.
In the history of science in the last 150 years, the real and first experts have been industrial workers, normal employees in several business, without any university background. They were interested in the field of their after work occupation, as there were f.e. butterflies, or other insects, cacatceae, tropical fishes, what ever. They often knew more than the one or the other studied Dr. or prof.
They were the base of the later upcoming scientific publication standard.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 19, 2021 11:37 am

Then there was that low-level Swiss patent clerk who supposedly was so poor at mathematics that he had to seek help to come up with the ridiculously simple E = mc^2.

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2021 2:37 pm

Then there was that low-level Swiss patent clerk

Einstein studied university level mathematics and physics in what is the predecessor of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich and he was never far from Academia even during his Patent office time. Eg. he got his PhD and his first lecturer appointment during this time. So sorry, your example is a clear fail.

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 19, 2021 2:28 pm

Experts are not dependant of a scientific title.

Perhaps. But the correlation is extremely strong. I can count on my single hand those experts who have come from outside of Academia. Okay, most of the credentialed experts are not really “geniuses”, I have to admit. But direct scientific error very rarely goes to publication. Most of the output is more like repetition and frankly useless stuff.

In the history of science in the last 150 years, the real and first experts have been industrial workers

Most science (I mean real science, STEM) is so thoroughly mathematical today that for any meaningful result you need to learn higher mathematics for years.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 11:33 am

Experience has taught me to believe the experts.

You are apparently unaware of the story of the role that Lord Kelvin played in the effort to determine the age of the Earth. His calculations were seriously low! However, because of his premier reputation as a thermodynamics expert, few were willing to challenge him. Consequently, advancement in determining the age of the Earth was impeded.

He was wrong about other things as well. There is nothing bad about being wrong. It can help advance knowledge, if the ‘expert’ and his followers have an open mind and are willing to admit to making a mistake. However, people like you, who uncritically accept any and all ‘experts’ as the last word in a debate, are theists, not scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2021 2:48 pm

You are apparently unaware of the story of the role that Lord Kelvin played in the effort to determine the age of the Earth

No, you’re wrong, I know the story. Furthermore, I know too that there were multiple independent estimates giving roughly the same age (I think it was like cc 1 or 200 000 years). I have to admit though that I read it like 40 years ago, I can’t remember the specifics. I did find it amusing that multiple independent lines of inquiry gave approx the same number so the scientists must’ve been quite sure about their results.

because of his premier reputation as a thermodynamics expert

No. At that time they simply couldn’t come up with the correct answer. That was before quantum mechanics. So your next take on this subject (below) is an attempt to further a bad analogy:

He was wrong about other things as well.

It wasn’t like he was wrong but some other people knew the truth. They simply didn’t know that at that time. Furthermore, and this is much more important, the “what we surely don’t know” nowadays is much more seriously limited (I mean scientifically limited). We may not know things about galaxy formation but the physics behind climate science is settled beyond any doubt. Any serious paradigm change would only affect some far away decimal places.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 5:55 pm

I love the leap “physics behind climate science is settled” … sorry but no only activists would say that. The reason the 97% is so fragile is because normal people simply don’t buy it they smell snake oil salesmen.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
TimTheToolMan
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 4:00 pm

nyolci, just because someone claims to have debunked a criticism of some aspect of climate science doesn’t mean its *actually* debunked. Scepticalscience is full of “debunkings” that are hilarious.

nyolci
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 18, 2021 5:37 pm

doesn’t mean its *actually* debunked.

Here it does mean that. This is science, it is hard, but when they (ie. scientists) say something you’d better listen and take it seriously.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 7:00 pm

but when they (ie. scientists) say something you’d better listen and take it seriously.”

Oh God, it’s pathetic. What are you 12?

Mr.
Reply to  Mike
December 18, 2021 10:34 pm

Nyolci thinks “climate science” is some sort of exotic weapon in a video game.

Oh wait . . .

Lrp
Reply to  Mike
December 19, 2021 12:10 am

No, he’s an old Hungarian communist apparatchik

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
December 19, 2021 2:52 pm

No, he’s an old Hungarian communist apparatchik

No, this is not true. Actually, during “communism” (they never called it that) I was quite young and we (family, circle of frieds etc.) were in the opposition. Half of my family defected etc. It was Capitalism that has made me realize those commies were completely right. And please spare me the bullshot that I must be a loser, unemployed etc. No, I’m not.

Drake
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 9:00 pm

Nice: When I first saw the hookystick I noted that the MWP and LIA were no there. Obviously the a$$hat who wrote that, and the minimum of 3 a$$hat reviewers, supposed “scientists” all, were incompetent, i.e., NOT SCIENTISTS. Are all 4 are part of your 97%?

Hansen said the Hudson would be flooding NYC by now. Another to “take seriously”.

nyolci
Reply to  Drake
December 19, 2021 2:55 pm

When I first saw the hookystick I noted that the MWP and LIA were no there

A question: how do you know there was a MWP. Or a LIA? I answer it to you, don’t worry. Because of climatic reconstructions. Now this science has advanced a lot, and we have much more accurate reconstructions (like the hockey stick), and we know by now that the MWP and to a lesser extent, the LIA were mostly North Atlantic phenomena.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 1:49 am

WTF? It’s gotta be Griff or yet another troll from the farm?

Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 4:45 am

There are so many scientists not part of the consensus having published more than 1,000 papers not conform to the publications you prefer to belive…

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 19, 2021 2:56 pm

having published more than 1,000 papers

In blogs?

Bill Sprague
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 6:56 am

The first principal of science is that science is not up for a vote. Consensus places no role in legitimate science. 100 years after Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity physicists are still testing its validity using pulsars.

Clearly the Chinese, the Russians, India, Japan and others do not buy into the 97% consensus. They have disproved the consensus through their actions. The Chinese are building coal fired power stations at the rate of one per week. India and Japan are investing heavily in coal fired energy, Russia continues to develop its ff sources, as does Brazil, and many other countries.

If scientists from these countries truly thought that the end of the world is coming in 12 years because of CO2 production, they would be investing in wind and solar. The Chinese, India, Russia, Brazil etc do not want to die in 12 years either. They are playing politics with Western foolishness about man made CO2 caused global warming to the detriment of the West and the advantage of low cost, reliable coal power for themselves.

nyolci
Reply to  Bill Sprague
December 19, 2021 3:00 pm

The first principal of science is that science is not up for a vote.

Wrong. The so called fundamental laws are laws of consensus. Like the law of energy conservation. This is simply an empirical (observational) law. Energy seems to conserve. That’s why this law is an axiom in the mathematical models of physics.

100 years after Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity physicists are still testing its validity using pulsars

Yep. And in the meanwhile no one questions it. There’s a consensus. Up to x decimal places it’s okay. Maybe a persistent discrepancy at x+1 will change this view. But anyway, something to the accuracy of x decimal places is damn well accurate. Even if it turns out to be false (ie. breaking down at x+1).

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 6:04 pm

“Yep. And in the meanwhile no one questions it.”

Garbage you are clearly know nothing of the science of gravity so please just shut up on the subject. Any scientist working on alternatives theories to gravity and there are a lot fundamentally doesn’t believe in GR. There has always been tension between QM and GR and there are plenty of scientists that think QM is dominant.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 11:38 am

You are such an ignorant, pompous ass!

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2021 3:01 pm

You are such an ignorant, pompous ass!

Furthermore I may be your daddy ‘cos I did it to your mother.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 5:14 pm

Except the junk that is being pushed can’t even convince the unwashed masses to agree. That is because the so called experts aren’t believable. The reason the 97% junk is failing is because of credibility it has nothing to do with a conspiracy it is to do with climate science stupidity.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 4:31 pm

Legates et al (2013) a falsification of Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus
Published: 30 August 2013Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

Abstract …

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 18, 2021 5:32 pm

Legates et al (2013) a falsification of Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus

This “study” was, how can I put it politely, flawed.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 5:56 pm

It was Cook et al that was deeply flawed. Legates merely explained why. Cook’s attempt at a rebuttal of Legates was nonpunishable. Legates has not been falsified.

There isn’t one “consensus” survey that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked numerous times … beginning with Zimmerman/Doran. Simply put, there never was a consensus. Hell, you idiots can’t even decide on a definition for what it is.

Ruleo
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 10:02 pm

This “study” was, how can I put it politely, flawed.

And curiously (not really) you point out nothing flawed. HA!

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 2:18 am

This “study” was, how can I put it politely, flawed.”

This is a great example of how you think a debunking was flawed. We all saw the detailed results (that weren’t actually released) and saw the numbers associated with the responses.

The responses where abstracts explicitly endorsed the IPCC statement that *most* of the warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2 were tiny. The vast, vast majority of abstracts implied anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for some of the measured warming, but didn’t state “most”.

And so when John Cook came out and said his paper supported the IPCC it was a straight out lie. As was the 97% consensus story he made up.

Hell, 97% of people on this forum agree that CO2 has some impact on the global temperature. Hardly anyone believes that number is precisely 0. There are a few but not many.

Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 3:39 am

Your idiothy started talking about “scientific consensus” 😀

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 6:07 pm

The deeper point is why would anyone care about 97.1% consensus in the first place. At best it’s a interesting statistic a bit like how many climate scientists are also activists is and the answer to that is probably closer to 99%.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 19, 2021 7:39 am

“However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.”

There it is.

I think I said elsewhere that the real number was about 3 percent consensus, but I see I misremembered the decimal places, and it’s lower than 3 percent.

The 97 percent consensus reported by alarmists is just another Climate Change Lie.

Last edited 29 days ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
December 18, 2021 4:32 pm

You forgot to include your number 6:

“6. I (you) am a fool, don’t listen to me”

nyolci
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 18, 2021 5:36 pm

You forgot to include your number 6:

Here you go:
6.Richard is a fukkin idiot.

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 12:16 am

He touched a nerve, you lost the argument

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
December 19, 2021 3:02 pm

He touched a nerve, you lost the argument

Yes, really 😉 More seriously, the principle is insult for insult.

Simon
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 18, 2021 5:41 pm

“6. I (you) am a fool, don’t listen to me”
Umm….. he may or may not be a fool, but judging by your comment he wouldn’t be the only one here if he was. His main point is, “don’t listen to me… listen to the experts”.

Reply to  Simon
December 19, 2021 3:41 am

You Simple Simon are the next in the row not to listen to.

Simon
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 19, 2021 11:42 am

You Simple Simon are the next in the row not to listen to.”
Haha…. but you did.

nyolci
Reply to  Simon
December 19, 2021 3:02 pm

His main point is, “don’t listen to me… listen to the experts”

Exactly.

Simon
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 4:44 pm

There is a major problem with skeptics listening to experts. They struggle to find any who agree with them. In fact even the ones they quote… Spencer, Christie, even Mr Watts, all acknowledge then planet is warming and that the activities of humans are the primary cause. There point of difference is they down play the potential problems going forward.

LdB
Reply to  Simon
December 19, 2021 5:11 pm

Which is all well and good but who gets to decide who is an expert 🙂

I can find you lots of experts who will tell you all sorts of things but it may take a few days to shop around.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Simon
Reply to  LdB
December 19, 2021 5:52 pm

Which is why I regard the IPCC as the foremost authority. A collection of the most informed minds on the planet that regularly asses the state of play and write detailed reports. I get it that people here don’t like what they write and do their darndest to find fault…. but that is how the game is played.

LdB
Reply to  Simon
December 19, 2021 6:09 pm

Why not trust the drunk professor that spends all his time down the pub .. statistically he is just as likely to be right. See the thing about experts is they need to be tested and challenged to see what there expertise level is like, you can’t just claim it.

The IPCC is a difficult one because it is many views and range from believable to absurd.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Simon
Reply to  LdB
December 19, 2021 7:01 pm

Why not trust the drunk professor that spends all his time down the pub .. statistically he is just as likely to be right”
No he is not. The IPCC gets more right than any other group. I am talking about their reports not the individuals (hell Christopher Monckton was a contributor).

LdB
Reply to  Simon
December 20, 2021 3:28 am

If they weren’t all a bunch of activists pushing the most fail solution ever in emission control they might be slightly more than comedy value. Prohibition of anything from alcohol, nuclear weapons, drugs has never worked so the IPCC retards to think it’s going to work is classic theatre of the absurd.

The most serious problem with climate science is those involved want to dictate how the problem is tackled. You note there are no multiple plans or options put forward just the one stupid trash solution over and over again which has zero chance of success. If you think emission control is going to work I have a number of bridges I can sell you because you are stupidly gullible.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Simon
Reply to  LdB
December 20, 2021 11:17 am

The most serious problem with climate science is those involved want to dictate how the problem is tackled. “
Why wouldn’t they. Doesn’t your surgeon want to sort the cancer?

“If you think emission control is going to work”
Well come on, what is your solution?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Simon
December 22, 2021 6:52 am

His main point is, “don’t listen to me… listen to the experts”.”

We actually must make decisions based on the science. And, with all due respect to actual citizen scientists (google bdgwx), it is mostly done by those with the acumen, work ethic, and willingness to forego more $ elsewhere, to pursue it as a career. There is plenty of valuable, increasingly granular research being done, but the science is in, with the “consensus” on it, highly, positively, correlated to actual subject knowledge.

I’m thankful that we have – save for a few dead enders – moved on to how to best manage this problem. I’m also surprised at the lack of interest demonstrated by the deniersphere, w.r.t. real world management. You all probably have some cogent arguments on how to do so, but prefer hysterical blindness.

There is definitively a fossil fuel off ramp that we are on – unless you believe in the Unicorn fallacy of it being an infinite resource. And some AGW effects can be effectively managed in a way that will serve future gens, better than draconian fossil fuel use cuts now. Sea level rise comes to mind….

Fossil fuels should be managed as valuable bridge fuels. I.e., not squandered to keep us all using SUV’s like rascal scooters, with the resulting, ever higher BMI’s. It’s no coincidence that those of us on earth with the cheapest fossil fuel bills relative to income, also have the highest incidents of life style diseases….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 6:33 am

“They think the problem is large scale, well funded “contrarian” misinformation.”

Pointing out that alarmists cannot prove their CO2 climate change claims, is not misinformation,it is a correct characterization of the situation.

It’s alarmists who make claims they can’t back up. That’s not misinformation, either, just the facts.

I could be proven wrong if someone were to provide evidence showing Human-caused Climate Change is real, but we know that’s not going to happen, don’t we.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
December 19, 2021 5:05 pm

You aren’t even counted amongst the useful idiots. The mere fact the useful idiots can’t get enough traction at elections to effect change is because even children can see the lunacy being pushed.

another ian
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 12:42 pm

Rud

There is the fourth to that – along the lines of “If caught at any of the first three then everything you ever said will be subject to scrutiny”

Rud Istvan
Reply to  another ian
December 18, 2021 2:24 pm

TY. Did not know that.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 5:02 pm

I used to believe the propaganda, the dogma, then I started to read for myself.

Some of the articles are way over my head but I find my way back in the comments section.

Best site on the internet

John Hultquist
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 7:07 pm

Rud, have you heard this song; written for Clint Eastwood’s movie by his golfing partner;

From the Original Motion Picture, THE MULE – Toby Keith “Don’t Let The Old Man In” – YouTube

Clint is about 90.

Lrp
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 11:46 pm

Consensus communication is propaganda.

markl
December 18, 2021 10:30 am

Typical propaganda move. Discredit and silence objections with personal attacks.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  markl
December 18, 2021 11:02 am

Its all they got. Old lawyer saying. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither are on your side, pound the table. This is table pounding.

DMacKenzie
December 18, 2021 10:32 am

Yet another analysis by supposed expert authors who, for a very basic start, can’t calculate the radiative temperature of the planet from the SB equation, nor what altitude is that equivalent temperature, nor what the surface temperature would be based on that altitude and lapse rate, and have completely no idea what is a reasonable approximation of clear sky emissivity might be….yet consider us “cautioneers” to be ignorant.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 18, 2021 2:29 pm

They confuse a PhD in Science History with a PhD in Physics. It is a dermatological condition resulting from intimately stroking a tanned sheepskin.

saveenergy
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 18, 2021 5:04 pm

Well, intimately stroking something !!

Art Slartibartfast
December 18, 2021 10:32 am

As a climate realist I do not fit the profile. Got my MSc. in the nineties. You do not have to be a wine connoiseur to taste that the Chateaux Margot left open for two days has gone sour. Likewise you do not need to be a climate scientist to see the way climate modelling is done is deeply, deeply flawed.

Lee L
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
December 18, 2021 12:14 pm

You’re lucky to have studied in the nineties. Here is what has happened to the ‘MSc’ in the 30 odd years since your MSc was conferred:

The thesis topic of a Parks Board councilor in Vancouver, BC. (MSc granted in 2016):

“LOOKING TO VANCOUVER’S ELDERS:
THE 1960s AND 1970s FOOD COUNTERCULTURE STORY AND HOW IT
INFORMS THE CONTEMPORARY INCARNATION OF VANCOUVER’S
FOOD SUSTAINABILITY MOVEMENT: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY
QUALITATIVE STUDY
by
Camil Dumont
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES
(Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems)
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Vancouver)
December 2016
© Camil Dumont, 2016 ”

This is kind of equivalent to submitting a book report and no numbers PLEASE! (QUALITITIVE STUDY). as your Master’s Thesis.

Now interviews with old hippy backyard gardeners in Kitsilano … well this ain’t what I call a Science degree unless you call it POLITICAL SCIENCE.
Shame on my old Alma Mater that has previously produced true and actual NOBEL laureates.
My grandfather had numerous backyard gardens but never applied for the degree, probably because there was no high school in Ireland where he grew up.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Lee L
December 18, 2021 5:37 pm

UBC used to be a fine university even as recently as the ’90s. Sadly, through the decreasing competence of the more recent chancellors and their preoccupation with progressive, political correctness UBC has become a shadow of it’s once formidable scholastic status,

Garboard
December 18, 2021 10:33 am

As Koonin points out in Unsettled,, it’s not so much that the science is bad as that what gets thrown around in the popular press is

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Garboard
December 18, 2021 12:20 pm

The science isn’t good enough to prove humans are affecting the Earth’s weather patterns.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 18, 2021 4:34 pm

That’s a fact so often overlooked.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Garboard
December 18, 2021 2:37 pm

The popular press only exacerbates what is already bad ‘science.’ How often do you see an uncertainty associated with a measurement or calculation in a climatology article? Even when it is presented, how often does it state whether they are relying on one-sigma or two-sigma, and how often do they follow the rules of significant figures? It has been said that mathematics is the language of science. It should be evident that those who call themselves climatologists have a limited ‘vocabulary’ and a poor grasp of science ‘grammar.’

dodgy geezer
December 18, 2021 10:37 am

So…. most contrarians are 65 or older? Another way of saying that would be that most conformists are young and gullible…

MarkW
Reply to  dodgy geezer
December 18, 2021 11:39 am

Either that or those who have already retired, don’t have to worry about being fired for voicing their opinions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2021 12:21 pm

Good point. Retirees can speak their minds.

Stu
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 18, 2021 2:14 pm

They also are not dependent on the financial incentives of giving governments what they want to hear.

AndyHce
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 18, 2021 3:11 pm

As long as they don’t mind all the stones and rotten tomatoes coming their way. Of course, if some of the extreme minded on the other side were to get their way, the consequences of speaking out would be much worse.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2021 5:37 pm

Bingo
I post lots of things on LinkedIn, have hundreds following but only a few will publicly support me even though in private I get overwhelming thumbs up from all

So much pressure to conform

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  dodgy geezer
December 18, 2021 4:25 pm

Meanwhile they have no problem with a senile 78 year old president, senile 80 year old speaker of the house, or senile 90 year old Senator Feinstein, and loved senile Justice RBG.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
December 18, 2021 5:19 pm

There’s no fool like and old fool. Hope our young people will learn this in time or else they will be even bigger fools.

Rolf H Carlsson
December 18, 2021 10:50 am

A Swedish libertarian blogger, Henrik Jönson, today made his weekly posting about the double moral standards of Swedish leftist Government and their affiliates, triggered by a revealing story about a newly appointed member of the Socialist Government. A picture of this person from her youth shows when she makes a Hitler Sig Heil-sign, taking part in a gathering accompanied by fascist music.
Suddenly, the Socialist prerogative of blaming some of the opposition parties for supporting extreme right wing ideas was severly compromised. And an avalanche of excuses was launched by other Government members and socialist journalists to defend the new minister by claiming that she was no longer sympathizing with such ideas. Henrik Jönson repeatedly stated that he believded her but it was rather the obvious double moral that he targeted. Had it been an opposition representative the reaction had resulted in a campaign to force that person to resign. The best of Mr Jönson’s posting: he quoted Lenin saying that it is not the ideas expressed that we are concerned about, it is who he is expressing them! Those are our targets!

Vuk
Reply to  Rolf H Carlsson
December 18, 2021 11:11 am

to paraphrase Vladimir Ilich said : To win the war against capitalists we have to make it a civil war.

Philip
December 18, 2021 10:54 am

The problem for the 97% is they don’t address or debate the 3% to prove them wrong, mostly they ignore and name call, when that doesn’t work they threaten them. Normal people want to see the evidence so they do. When 3% beats 97% its not hard to see who is believed.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Philip
December 18, 2021 2:39 pm

Or actively work to suppress anything that they disagree with.

David Dibbell
December 18, 2021 10:59 am

What motivates experts and non-experts alike to pursue a position on climate change contrary to scientific consensus?”

Maybe because there is honest disagreement with the consensus claims on technical grounds. And maybe because the consequences of the error are too damaging to the human condition to keep quiet about.

Gregory Woods
December 18, 2021 10:59 am

The funniest part of the study is the authors are both political scientists

Question: What is a ‘political scientist’? Maybe they form a part of that academic area know as ‘social scientist’ or just those folks know for their ‘science’ envy…

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Gregory Woods
December 18, 2021 12:10 pm

Political Science is the study of how politicians build consensus, influence voting and then how they govern. This whole “97%” thing is the perfect example of political science in action.

Of course, being so heavily biased themselves, the authors lose the thread of what they’re doing and wind up writing propaganda material rather than a coherent, objective piece of research.

That, unfortunately, is what the journals demand these days and what modern “peer review” shapes. The dark ages are upon us.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Joe Gordon
December 18, 2021 1:32 pm

Trofim Lysenko is alive and well and working in academia, wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt to his lectures.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Gregory Woods
December 18, 2021 5:38 pm

Adding the word political or social or perhaps even climate in front of the word scientist is like putting lipstick on a pig. A real scientist can only examine a particular aspect of climate from the perspective of his or her discipline whether it be physics, chemistry, geography, oceanography etc.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 18, 2021 11:02 am

When I found myself on the job market aged 50 I had a great deal of interviews. One recurring theme was on my PhD: when did I complete it. As it was in 1979 that was considered ok. Why?
Because we don’t really trust the quality behind it for anything after the late 1980s.

The notion about prior to 1985 thus perfectly confirms what clearly the real world already knew but the sillies who wrote the piece now discovered and completely misinterpret.

Rob_Dawg
December 18, 2021 11:18 am

The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older.

Age and Guile Beat Youth and Innocence ~ P.J. O’Rourke

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
December 18, 2021 1:34 pm

We haven’t won yet. And there is age and guile and money lurking in the Neobolshevik movement. I name no names, but you know who I mean.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
December 18, 2021 11:00 pm

The author(s) have no appreciation for timeframes, as if those who question the climate meme suddenly woke up from a Rip van Winkle slumber. I am 68, but I was in my mid-forties when I began to take a serious look at “global warming,” so-called “sustainability” (as defined by the UN) and alternative energy. Being an atmospheric and applied earth scientist since the mid-1970s, I gathered the data and analyzed it for myself, as has been my custom instilled in me by my major professor, a truly brilliant, world class micrometeorologist and soil physicist, Dr. Kirk W. Brown. It was almost immediately apparent that the alarmist view is patently wrong, that the prescribed “solutions” are ineffective, damaging and exorbitantly costly, and that any urgent action is premature and foolhardy.

More than 20 years later, I am more certain than ever and have witnessed the rampant corruption / prostitution of scientists, just as we had been forewarned by President Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address. Once-great academic institutions and professional societies have become mouthpieces for those seeking the destruction of western thought and culture.

Tom
December 18, 2021 11:22 am

As with so many things, people of all political stripes take sides on an issue based on what they think their political adversary’s position is. Thinking not required.

HotScot
Reply to  Tom
December 18, 2021 3:47 pm

Are there any positive aspects to socialism?

I can’t think of any. Their logic is so faulty I think anyone who supports ‘climate science’ is usually left wing politically as it conforms to the left’s inherently destructive nature.

Are the ‘right’ adversarial in their sceptical approach to climate science? No, I don’t believe so. We are conservative by nature, so cautious by practice.

Do we want a climate, or any other type of revolution? No, we are happy to consider science, but we are not happy to have it rule our lives.

We tend to believe our eyes, not our hearts.

saveenergy
Reply to  HotScot
December 18, 2021 5:44 pm

“anyone who supports ‘climate science’ is usually left wing politically”

Not in my humble experience.
I know a lot of people from across the political spectrum who support the 97% ‘con-senseless’; they have 2 things in common, a lack of critical thinking & they don’t have any knowledge or interest in physics, but will parrot the latest pseudoscience.

I also know several physicists, who are politically to the far left of Trotsky, but know CAGW is a heap of crap.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  HotScot
December 19, 2021 1:59 am

“Are there any positive aspects to socialism?”
Margaret summed it up pretty well. (paraphrased)

“socialism is a great and marvelous idea, truly wonderful, spending other people’s money and feeling good, it’s wonderful until the money runs out..”
Teflon Tony and the one eyed monster did it for a good decade+ after the UK balanced its books in the early 90s, then Mr Darling came along at the end and said “sorry mate there’s no money left at all, we spent itall and sold off all the furniture too”…

Where did the UK industry go, NPPs, ICI, aircraft making, forging steel, casting alloys, steel car manufacturing”?
All off to India and PRC, all foreign owned.

Socialism? Ha! That was just “democratic” socialism.
if you have ever been to China, or Russia, try the other variants!

HotScot
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 19, 2021 3:18 am

The thing most people miss with UK manufacturing is that had we been forced to compete with the Chinese, we would be paying Chinese wages.

Maggie got it right. Build up our most valuable assets, intellectual and financial control of our destiny. The one thing lacking was political control which we had surrendered to Europe. One of the reasons our politics right now is such a mess, we have lost the ability and personnel to govern our own country and are left with Boris and Starmer, two third rate politicians completely out their depth.

Ted
December 18, 2021 11:23 am

The real problem is that those demanding action never admit what the 97% agreement is in Orestes’ paper. She specifically defined the consensus as humans having some affect in addition to natural variation, not as agreeing that human action is the primary cause of warming.

MarkW
December 18, 2021 11:25 am

3 per cent of signees to be climate experts

That’s funny considering how few of the so called climate “scientists” have scientific or even technical degrees.

December 18, 2021 12:18 pm

“changes in how certain areas (for example, meteorology) approach research” exactly: by abandoning the scientific method completely.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
December 18, 2021 12:24 pm

There’s ample research now that shows those most opposed in the public and scientists to climate change policies of renewable energy schemes are actually the most informed on the facts and energy and emissions issues related to climate change claims.

So the dumb, anti-science crowd is apparently in the 97%.

Last edited 30 days ago by joelobryan
Old Cocky
December 18, 2021 12:44 pm

They do seem to be rather fixated on the number 97 (well. 0.97, but let’s not be picky), despite them being totally different 97s.

Is 97 the new 42?

Mike
December 18, 2021 12:55 pm

It’s that the climate modelers have no conception on how to validate a simulation. Their predictions are laughable and do not match the historical record. The models are clearly inadequate and are missing important little items like water vapor and solar contributions. The FAA would laugh out of the room a Boeing flight model that mismatched the flight test data as badly as these so-called climate models.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Mike
December 18, 2021 2:23 pm

You are of course spot on. But the problem is that the model makers are not the brightest cookies in the tin who therefore do not understand that crucial point. They believe that their models are fine when you can ‘fit’ them to data by tweaking a few of the many fudge parameters.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Mike
December 18, 2021 2:31 pm

I think they know, but cannot so don’t even try.
Models produce a tropical troposphere hot spot that does not exist in reality. Models produce an ECS twice observed. Models (due to computational intractability on relevant grid scales) must be parameterized, and that drags in the attribution problem.
Think of all the climate modelers that would be out of jobs if attempted validations failed—which they must.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 4:12 pm

It’s not just that the models use parameterization, it’s that the “parameterizations” are all over the map.
For example, nobody knows exactly how much aerosols were released during the 70’s and 80’s. Nor do they know the exact mix of aerosols. As a result each model maker is free to choose whatever amount and mix of aerosols necessary to make their models “work”.
If the “science” was as settled as they claim, and if the models were as good as they claim, then there should be some agreement in the “parameterizations” that are used in the various models. There isn’t.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2021 10:49 pm

There would also be only one model that everyone used because it matched observations.

Not 114 of them that are all over the place.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 18, 2021 4:49 pm

Mr. Istvan, you described the symptoms, not the primary problem
with climate models.

The primary problem:
Computer models “predict” whatever their owner’s want predicted.

Governments want predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.
Governments pay for, and get, predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.

The model predictions of rapid dangerous global warming,
support earlier pre-model predictions for rapid, dangerous global warming
that i trace back to oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.

There have been 40 years to refine the computer models for better predictions.
But In fact, the current CMIP6 models appear to over predict global warming
by even more than the prior CMIP5 models.

The one model that least over predicts global warming
is the Russian INM model. It gets no attention by being
binned together with all the less accurate CMIP models.

IT IS OBVIOUS that accurate predictions / projections / simulations
ARE NOT A GOAL.

The climate models are rigged to scare people about the future climate.
Government scientists with complex models
and BIG COMPUTERS impress many people.
I’m not one of them.
To me, climate models are nothing more than computer games.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 18, 2021 5:42 pm

Well said. I was trying a different tack.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Mike
December 19, 2021 2:01 am

“The FAA would laugh out of the room a Boeing flight model that mismatched the flight test data” sadly they followed the 97% and ended up with one plane at the bottom of the sea, and the other as scrap metal in a desert.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike
December 19, 2021 11:51 am

… do not match the historical record.

They don’t even match the historical record well despite being tuned to the historical record. How can anyone seriously trust an extrapolation of such poor fits?

Andrew Dickens
December 18, 2021 1:03 pm

All that stuff about when dissenters got their degrees…….. are the people who did this study just saying that it’s easier to fool young people than old? I’ll go along with that.

Simon
December 18, 2021 1:05 pm
Rich Davis
Reply to  Simon
December 18, 2021 1:50 pm

100% of the Politburo supports communism, eh simple?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Simon
December 18, 2021 1:51 pm

Simple Simon proves that doubling down on idiocy just creates more idiocies

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 18, 2021 2:50 pm

Simple Simon demonstrates that he doesn’t understand science.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
December 18, 2021 2:49 pm

It is really a non sequitur! Real science isn’t done by consensus. Consensus can act as a place holder for a paradigm — until the paradigm is overturned.

“Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” Einstein

Ted
Reply to  Simon
December 18, 2021 3:27 pm

Just a complete and total lack of rational thought or logic. They looked at a random sample of papers and found that only a few were outright hostile to the consensus. They neglected to look at how many supported the consensus vs how many took no position, just assumed that all the rest agree.

MarkW
Reply to  Ted
December 18, 2021 4:15 pm

Additionally, the people doing the evaluating of these papers, were not impartial observers.

Last edited 29 days ago by MarkW
MarkW
Reply to  Simon
December 18, 2021 4:13 pm

All the people who agree with us, agree with us.
These “surveys’ also always start by weeding out anyone who doesn’t already agree with the consensus.

Reply to  Simon
December 18, 2021 4:55 pm

The consensus is now 110% !
Based on a show of hands vote, which is real science !
There are claims that some scientists raised two hands, rather than one.
However Jen “Baghdad Bob” Psaki dismissed that claim as a “conspiracy theory”
With a 110% consensus, a few scientists can later change their minds.
and the consensus percentage would still be at least 100%.
Who needs computer models when you have a 110% consensus?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 18, 2021 5:29 pm

Putin approves of this message

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 19, 2021 8:06 am

“The consensus is now 110% !”

Good one! I busted out laughng. 🙂

LdB
Reply to  Simon
December 19, 2021 5:18 pm

Wow only 99% and yet still the unwashed masses won’t support it.

Lookout Simon has gone full retard.

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Derg
Reply to  Simon
December 19, 2021 11:47 pm

Russia colluuuusion;)

You are a moron

Old Cocky
December 18, 2021 1:17 pm

I ca’t help myself…

by the 1950s, there was “an all-out assault on virtually every aspect of Keynesian economics” led, most notably, by Milton Friedman (Yergin and Stanislaw Reference Yergin, Stanislaw, Yergin and Stanislaw1998, para. 8). By the 1960s and 1970s, neoliberalism was a prominent theory within economics and other disciplines. “

It’s neo-Classical (more commonly referred to as monetarist), not neo-liberal. The Wikipedia biography of Friedman is quite decent, and summarises his achievements nicely.

As with most fields of study, there have been advances and retreats in the last half century, but the basic premises have withstood the test of time.
The main difference between Keynsian and neo-Classical economics seems to be the relative importance of fiscal vs. monetary policy, but both really act to maintain the velocity of money.
Being largely a social science, an unfortunate amount of personal opinion seems to come into play. Also, adaptive responses can make predictions either self-fulfilling or self-defeating,.

I don’t claim to be a strong economist, but my piece of paper says I am one. Some aspects, such as game theory and econometrics, seem useful, but many aspects seems rather dubious

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Old Cocky
December 18, 2021 2:31 pm

This retired CFO (who doesn’t believe the 97% stat) says, don’t underestimate who controls the funding. In simple language — hypothesis doesn’t agree with Govt & NPO leaders, no research grant, no advancement in academics or govt depts. And yet, say the Koch Brothers fund research on climate, it is summarily dismissed because of the funder and the research is ignored, unfortunately by the MSM & academia, therefore causing fewer and fewer options for those that have a dissenting view.

MarkW
Reply to  Old Cocky
December 18, 2021 4:18 pm

Governments that follow the advice of Keynes, have ALWAYS ended up damaging their economies. Governments that have followed the advice of the Chicago school, have ALWAYS ended up improving their economies.

Reply to  Old Cocky
December 18, 2021 4:58 pm

I edited a financial and economic newsletter for 43 years.
One of my favorite facts:
US economists, as a group, NEVER predicted a US recession !
Not one !

Bill Sprague
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 19, 2021 6:32 am

Favorite quote, “Economists correctly predicted 7 out of the lat 3 recessions”

Mr.
Reply to  Old Cocky
December 18, 2021 10:54 pm

This old economist came to realize early in his career that we really were there just to make weather forecasters look good.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Mr.
December 18, 2021 11:29 pm

You could lay all the world’s economists end to end, and they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 18, 2021 1:27 pm

Well, I’m an old white guy who got his college degrees in 1970s (before the indoctrination began). The main reason I’ a contrarian is that I’ve reviewed the Climategate E-Mails and found the authors wanting in both professional and personal integrity. Of course, the fact that I have been trained in, and respect, the classical scientific method is also a factor, as is the fact that I took thermodynamics.

But, what the heck, I’m not knowledgeable enough to see snake oil being hawked.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 18, 2021 2:52 pm

One does not have to be a PhD ichthyologist to recognize when a fish is rotting.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 18, 2021 5:08 pm

I’m in the same category and
also took a thermodynamics course.
I got interested in climate science in 1997.
After one hour of reading I determined that
the “consensus” was based only on predictions
of the climate in 100 years.

I already knew next year’s climate
could not be accurately predicted.
Predictions of 100 years in the future?
That’s ridiculous.
I have always dismissed predictions, in general.

So in one hour I decided predictions of the future
climate were climate astrology, and i still believe that
24 years later.

A few years ago I started a free, no-ads
climate science and energy blog to share
the best climate and energy articles I’ve read,
as a public service.

I’ve had over 272,000 page views, and hope I have changed
a few minds about believing wild guess predictions of the
future climate. The current climate is wonderful,
and here in Michigan we want MORE global warming.

Stephen Skinner
December 18, 2021 1:45 pm

A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education – G. B. Shaw

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
December 18, 2021 2:29 pm

But that same George Shaw was a great admirer and defender of Joseph Stalin and full of praise about the blessing he was for the USSR. All at the hight of the Holodomor in Ukraine.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 18, 2021 3:21 pm

I didn’t know that which does destroy the value of anything he says, although he can still come out with some truth.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 19, 2021 2:08 am

Yes and the person that genuinely went to report on the Holodomor, contradicting the official whitewashed version a Welshman Gareth JONES came to a sticky end.

Dennis
December 18, 2021 1:52 pm

Climate Gate 1 & 2 emails leaked before the IPCC Copenhagen Conference, “scientists” exchanging thoughts on how to create a climate emergency model and get away with it.

pochas94
December 18, 2021 2:29 pm

Are they scientists or are they politicians pretending to be scientists? I think the latter are more common.

Linda Goodman
December 18, 2021 2:39 pm

I’m sorry if this has already been said, too busy to read all the comments, but the 97% consensus is a baldfaced lie. How is this just forgotten, early onset dementia?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Linda Goodman
December 19, 2021 8:17 am

“How is this just forgotten, early onset dementia?”

It’s a tactic used by alarmists. They put out a climate change lie. The climate change lie gets debunked. And then the alarmists put out the same lie, and do it over and over again.

This is Propaganda 101: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth in many people’s minds.

Lies are all the climate change alarmists have so they repeat them over and over again.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Linda Goodman
December 19, 2021 11:59 am

Nyolci dismisses the detailed deconstruction of the 97% claim out of hand with the assertion that the analysis has been “debunked.” He provides no citation or detailed rebuttal of the points in the deconstruction. He apparently is hoping that any fence sitters that happen to read his remarks will accept them at face value because he seems so sure of his claim. He is playing poker, knowing that nobody can force him to show his hand, and should they demonstrate that they are holding a full-house, he can just quietly slink away and remain anonymous.

December 18, 2021 3:54 pm

The 97% number was from bogus “studies”.
And irrelevant — a consensus is meaningless in science.

In my 24 years of following climate science and energy,
I’ve never read anyone claiming humans have no
effect on the climate — no one SURE about that.

The so called “97% studies” were also twisted to claim
anyone who believed humans cause SOME amount
of global warming meant they FULLY agreed
with the entire CAGW fantasy.

I believe humans have some, unknown effect on global warming,
I also believe CAGW is wild speculation.
But when answering the questions used in most “97% studies”,
I would be declared to be a ‘believer’ in CAGW !

There seem to be two groups interested in climate change:
(1) Climate Alarmists who believe long term climate predictions, and
(2) Climate Realists who study the present and past climate,
and do not believe accurate climate predictions are possible.
or that the future climate can only get worse !

My only climate prediction has been correct since 1997:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets cooler”.
I’m still waiting for my Nobel Prize,
or at least an honorable Mention

In 2021, I added:
“Here in Michigan, I hope the climate gets warmer”.

Robert of Texas
December 18, 2021 3:58 pm

“This suggests individuals receiving their degrees within the last thirty years are less likely to reject the climate change consensus.”

It’s called WISDOM, and older people have more of it while younger people have less. Wisdom is forged from experience. Experience comes from doing. The older you get, the more opportunity you have to learn and become wise as opposed to being fed a pure propaganda-diet while in college.

There was a time when people were taught at least a little critical thinking skills. Now they are discouraged from thinking for themselves, hence there is likely to be less wisdom on average in the future. A very discouraging thought.

Lrp
December 18, 2021 4:04 pm

“Scientific revelations”, well said! The study could find no better words to express the religious character of mainstream climatology.

Thomas Gasloli
December 18, 2021 4:13 pm

The 97% believe something the data demonstrates is false. It does not matter how many people believe the false notion, it only matters that it is false.

Oldanalyst
December 18, 2021 4:53 pm

The older crowd knows a scam when it sees it, right Mr. Mann?

Dean
December 18, 2021 5:32 pm

Have these muppets not heard of CPD which is required by most scientific associations?

Also as likely is that they were trained to look at observations and experiments. Rather than gawp in awe of models.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dean
December 19, 2021 12:02 pm
Walter Sobchak
December 18, 2021 7:13 pm

Of course it is the old guys who dissent. They are retired and can’t be fired or lose grants for wrong think.

It doesn't add up...
December 18, 2021 7:17 pm

Not sure that economic schools have much to do with it. Is Putin a Friedmanite?

Old Cocky
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
December 18, 2021 7:44 pm

Paradoxically, probably more von Mises and Hayek 🙂

Silly little things like property rights or the rule of law don’t seem to be a factor in his thinking, however.

buggs
December 18, 2021 10:25 pm

Can we not just send Oreskes to live with the middle class in Venezuela for a year?

Assuming she lives, which I would fervently hope she did, her tune would likely be changed quite quickly. Or we’d know she is truly insane. It’s sort of a win win scenario.

James Bull
December 19, 2021 1:44 am

So if you know the background to the magical 97% we of the 3% are in fact 99.07% on the skeptical side of the question. Having people who are political scientists do this wonderful study just goes to show that it’s all to do with politics and nothing to do with science.
Have to admit to finding this funny in that they think that when the real world doesn’t work how they want there are dark forces stopping them bringing in their peoples republic into existence.

James Bull

Karl Johan Grimstad
December 19, 2021 10:30 am
Obsrvntcynic
December 19, 2021 11:06 am

Did you notice?? Keynes was listed as the Treasurer of the Eugenics Society. As such, he and all of his theories should be canceled immediately, (in accord with soviet liberal practice)!
By the by, the ONLY way 0.036% of the atmosphere can be the “control knob”for climate change, is when it was written into the models as such.

Dr. Daniel C. Ashley, PhD(2)
December 19, 2021 11:07 am

I am a climate change “contrarian”. I have two PhD degrees and taught statistics at the University of California, Riverside.

There is no 97% consensus on global warming existence, cause(es), or implications. Interestingly, there is no 97% consensus about very many things. We do not have a consensus on how, or why, even things like gravity work.

Moreover, so called climate science is not science at all. It is very sophisticated computer modeling which focuses on climate “forcings” All of the modeling has produced severely inaccurate results. The models do not +can not?) Take into account what effect clouds have on the climate in the long run. Not one of the models contains any information about the movement of the Earth’s magnetic poles.

Data used to explore the Earth’s temperature is also corrupt. Most of the data from the ocean and used in the models was acquired through the aggregation of ocean going ship data. Modern ships can better optimize operations by knowing the temperature of the sea water flowing through their systems. The data used in climate models is largely based on that error prone and inconsistently collected data.

Interestingly, virtually none of the models shows the error of measurements, nor how those errors of measurements combine together resulting in a large error of result.

I tried to get the raw, unchanged data from NOAA. They pointed me to published sets of adjusted data. After I explained that I wanted the raw, unadjusted data, they informed me that particular data is classified.

So, no. A 97% consensus does not exist.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Dr. Daniel C. Ashley, PhD(2)
December 19, 2021 12:01 pm

One may hope that these ‘classified’ original data indeed still exist. Given the climategate emails I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has disappeared them. That, incidently, would constitute a crime.

Buzz
December 19, 2021 2:14 pm

Lucy to Charlie Brown: “Liberal scientist can prove that climate change is real”.
Charlie Brown to Lucy: “They can’t even tell the difference between boys and girls”.

Pieter A Folkens
December 19, 2021 9:56 pm

The broad and generalized statement that starts the paper citing a 97% consensus of scientists is patently wrong. Everything that followed was based on that false premise.

For example, in Cook et al 2013, the authors examined 11,944 abstracts of which 66.4% had no position on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, but 97.1% of the remaining 4,013 did have a position. The 97% consensus conclusion was not based on all of the abstracts, rather only 32.6%— not even half.

Doran and Zimmerman 2008 was even worse. They surveyed 10,257 scientists and filtered through 3,187 responses to end up with 77 respondents who fit their criteria. All but two gave them the answer they were seeking. They divided 75 by 77 to arrive at a 97.4% consensus.

Nothing, including all consensus studies, support the opening statement in Young and Fritz 2021.

shoehorn
December 19, 2021 10:46 pm

Maybe the 81% of the 3% of CCCs who got educated prior to 1986 were taught the scientific method so win the debate against climate modellers and consensus merchants.

Anders Valland
December 20, 2021 2:24 am

As we all know, anyone with a engineering degree learn what they need to know until they graduate. After that they learn nothing new, they just apply what they have learned. Outside college or university they have no-one to help them learn new stuff.

Adrian
December 20, 2021 6:09 am

I work in the law , and in court cases you usually have two highly educated people with different viewpoints battling it out . The same is true of climate scientists some have very different opinions . I work in counter fraud and you can see some fraud markers in those who promote climate change , the markers are 1) Shut down debate or enquiry – the fraudster doesn’t want you looking 2) outrageous claims – these are designed to muddy the waters of an investigation 3 ) You don’t know what your talking about – again muddy the waters of the investigation 4) personal attacks – these are designed to devalue your evidence 5) Appeals to a higher authority – this is an attempt to intimidate you 6) reluctance in disclosing all the facts and figures – they don’t want you to know

TallDave
December 20, 2021 7:22 am

yeah someone should tell CERES to stop producing disinformation about LWR not being trapped

TallDave
December 20, 2021 7:25 am

classic motte and bailey

https://ordinary-times.com/2014/11/12/an-example-of-the-motte-and-bailey-doctrine/

The motte for climate change activists are the following:

  1. Global temperatures are rising.
  2. Greenhouse gases lead to increased temperatures.
  3. Greenhouse gases emitted by humans have led to measurable increases in temperature beyond what would have occurred without any humans.

The above points are highly defensible because Science. I believe they are true (though I do so only via trust in others rather than having evaluated any of the research involved personally).
Activists, however, do not sit in this motte for long. They often go on to make a lot of other claims in the bailey:

  • Long-term projections of the Earth’s climate are accurate.
  • Catastrophe will result in a few decades due to human carbon emissions.
  • Nuclear energy is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
  • Carbon capture is not viable.
  • Geoengineering is not viable.
  • Unilateral subsidization of renewables by Western industrialized nations is an effective way to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.
  • Subsidies of energy-efficient products are a better use of resources rather than research and development.
  • Subsidizing vehicles that pollute less than other vehicles will provide a net reduction in greenhouse emissions.
  • LEED-certified buildings are more energy-efficient than old buildings.
  • Building new LEED-certified buildings reduces net greenhouse emissions relative to not building them.
  • Sending oil by railcar will result in less net emissions than sending oil through a pipeline (e.g. the Keystone pipeline).
Aaron
December 20, 2021 7:39 am

The Guardian is now claiming the Climate Change Consensus to be 99.9%. Wow!

Mark BLR
December 20, 2021 7:46 am

NB : All quotes are from the Young & Fitz article (in the “British Journal of Political Science”, it definitely doesn’t qualify as a full “peer-reviewed scientific paper”).

– – – – –

From page 5, the last paragraph of the “Methods” section :

To determine which individuals in our list are climate experts, we applied criteria used by Anderegg et al. (2010), which set a minimum of 20 climate-related, peer-reviewed publications as the base to establish expertise.

That isn’t (multiple) “criteria”, that’s one “criterion”.

From page 8, at the start of the second paragraph of the “Publications” section :

Fourteen [contrarian] individuals (3 per cent) meet expert criteria of having published twenty or more climate-related peer-reviewed articles.

I repeat, that’s one “criterion”.

– – – – –

Jumping back to page 6, the second paragraph of the “Education and Professional Experience” section :

Almost none of the individuals who signed the documents have a degree directly related to climate science. In fact, less than 1 per cent of the individuals in the sample have a degree deemed relevant to climate science, with relevance defined as individuals having a degree in climatology or a similar field. A total of 77 per cent of contrarians, however, have a scientific degree that could provide some knowledge related to climatology, for example, physics, geography, or engineering. Just under 23 per cent of contrarians have a degree with no direct relation to science, for example, statistics, economics, international relations, and those related to the humanities.

OK.

Full disclosure : I have a (Masters-level only, Electrical and Electronic) engineering degree.

By their definition I am “irrelevant” … which is perfectly fine with me as long as the context is clearly laid out (the above paragraph didn’t exactly “jump out at me” when first skimming the article).

– – – – –

Returning to page 5, the first sentence of the “Results” section :

As our aim is to create a profile and look for commonalities among individuals who all share contrarian views …

What sort of “neutral / unbiased / impartial” person would propose an idea for an article (or paper) with that particular “aim” ?

Why should anyone believe that the wide range of “contrarians”, from the mildest of “lukewarmers” (such as myself) all the way to the “Sky Dragon Slayer” nutters, have a single “profile” ?

– – – – –

On page 12, in the “Affiliations” section :

Collectively, our findings show that the majority of those who signed documents that reject AGW are not climate experts. As a result, these individuals lack the authority to render an opinion regarding climate change science.

The ancient Greeks knew that “argument from authority” was a logical fallacy over 2000 years ago.

Deciding that “our finding” that people who are not “climate experts” — i.e. people who don’t have both “a degree in climatology (or a similar field)” and “20 climate-related, peer-reviewed publications” under their belt — shouldn’t be “allowed” to express AN OPINION on the subject is … what’s the right term here ? …

… “authoritarian” ? …

… “totalitarian” ? …

… “fascist” ??? …

… “nukking futz” ? …

Mark BLR
December 20, 2021 8:13 am

Separate issue.

On page 1 :

Though few in number, 3 per cent of climate scientists and peer-reviewed climate science papers reject the consensus not only that is climate change occurring, but also that it is happening as a result of human activity

That’s “anthropogenic climate change (ACC)”, not simply “climate change” (see IPCC AR6, Annex VII, Glossary, page AVII-11).

– – – – –

In the “Conclusion” section, page 16 :

Although a gateway belief exists as to the causes and consequences of climate change …

Question 1 : What will be the final “global warming” due to ACC, and when will it occur ?
– 2°C (above “pre-industrial” levels)
– 3°C
– 4°C
– 5°C
– Other (please specify the “consequence”)

Question 2 : What will be the increase in global sea-levels due to ACC in the year 2100 ?
– < 50cm (above the 1990 level)
– > 50cm
– > 1m
– > 2m
– Other (please specify the “consequence”)

Question 3 : How many hurricanes (/ tropical cyclones), with what combined ACE score, will occur globally in the year 2100 ?

Forrest
December 20, 2021 11:24 am

So… Since I believe that CO2 can have an impact on the atmosphere and potentially temperature – doesn’t that mean that I am part of the 97%? However because I do not think based of observational data ( rather than the silly modeling that suggests otherwise ) that it constitutes a crisis does that mean that I am part of the 3%?

Additionally since I view moving to Solar/Wind as a silly method to mitigate the effects of man on the planet, rather I would suggest we move to nuclear and continue to utilize Carbon source mostly for transportation purposes rather than as for electric uses ( until we come up with a better fuel source for vehicles ). Does that make me dangerous?

Hmmmm…

niceguy
December 22, 2021 11:37 pm

Like vaccines: the vaccines are great and the small unvaxxed minority gave COVID to everybody else.