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. FitzDespite 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.
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
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%.
Indeed.
Are “luke warmers” included in the 97%?
I’m pretty sure that we are.
Always remember that 97% means in absolute terms 83 climatologists.
Exactly:
“97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming”
Doesn’t exist ……. which is appropriate, because neither does a “climate crisis”.
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.
Outside of these pages, when someone quotes “97%” and I ask what the source is, nobody can answer.
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.
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.
Yhere is no “consensus” in science, and, if
there were it would be wrong 97% of the time
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.
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.”
That would be the 67% of meteorologists whose jobs are dependent upon singing the climastrologist alarmist song.
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.
More importantly… It includes people who remember That 70’s Climate Crisis Show…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/24/that-70s-climate-crisis-show/
The skeptics are calling from inside the house!
You bad boy, fifty lashes for you
Fretting over the so-called “3%”? As Shakespeare wrote, “Thou dost protest too much.”
Has Oreskes thought of running for office?
She is better suited to politics than science
Are Mann, Oreskes etc cardinals in this new religion?
Not cardinals –
dogma enforcers.
Inquisitors
No, they’re not interested in asking any questions – they assert that they already have ALL the answers.
No, more like the vice police of Islam … and make no mistake about it, they would be just as cruel.
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.
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.
The our leaders aren’t impervious to facts & logic, it is just that the lies give them power & money.
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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
.-
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%
My IQ represents only 0.1% – a totally negligible minority in science 😉
Medic?
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.
“Psychologists have discovered” .. probably the same ones doing climate psychology 😉
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin
Actually the 3% are thermometers.
They refuse to agree with the climate models.
“…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.
“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
If 3% are able to disrupt your movement, then it wasn’t much of a movement to begin with.
If that 3% can disrupt your movement without any kind of media coverage, then your movement is probably from the bowels.
The climate crisis is a pandemic of the unconvinced. The 3% are keeping us from reaching climate nirvana because of their heresy.
Sound familiar??
“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!
Based on my kids experiences at college, it is because the last 30 years has been nonstop indoctrination based on the IPCC cabal.
Indeed!
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 !
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
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?
Apparently, they also think one stops learning after leaving college.
nowdays one stops thinking after entering college
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).
“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
Or maybe it’s because we’ve seen it all before.
And again, and again, and again…..
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Pointing out that the mole on the Emperor’s ass looks like a melanoma is rude.
The authors here make several big mistakes.
“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.
You’re wrong on all counts.
What utter cobblers.
You did not bring your A game to your provably laughable ‘rebuttal’.
Eg. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm But anyway, the original study wasn’t “debunked” in any scientific journal.
Perhaps, but no one claimed that was climate science either (eg. your original claim).
But you surely implied 🙂
Yep, but these are completely irrelevant since you’re not an expert. Just as my (nonexistent) publications in climate science.
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.
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.)
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
“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.
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.
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.
How do you go through life arguing that 2+2=5?
Do you really believe what you say or….
Winston Smith…… O’Brien interrogation in the Minstry of Love
So tell us about your expertise Nyolci?
You are wrong on one point. That was his A game.
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.
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.
“You are the filler material, the stuffing. You are the result of decades of neoliberal propaganda”
The Irony. It burns.
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’.
Well, perhaps because your (“skeptics”) political affiliations are so obvious 🙂
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.
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.
My mom always told me I shouldn’t lie. So I guess she is responsible.
Exactly. It’s not needed.
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.
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.
bullshit !
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.
Scientist.
Climate scientist.
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.
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.
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”.
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’.
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.
This is definitely not true.
So, Michael Mann is not ‘climate scientist’ because his PhD is in geophysics?
Yes he is. Sorry, I didn’t claim you have to have a certain type of degree.
ROFL if taht is your expert then you really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
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.
🙂 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.
🙂 How about you? The original article never claimed Oreskes was a climate scientist.
??? 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).
You have serious problems with reality.
You even pay for it. Congratulations.
” 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.
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.
Sorry, but not a random Mike from the comment section is the right person to judge this.
” 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.
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.
No, and I don’t know him. Or her. I don’t even know that. Likely “him”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
”but when they (ie. scientists) say something you’d better listen and take it seriously.”
Oh God, it’s pathetic. What are you 12?
Nyolci thinks “climate science” is some sort of exotic weapon in a video game.
Oh wait . . .
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.
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”.
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.
WTF? It’s gotta be Griff or yet another troll from the farm?
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…
In blogs?
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.
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.
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).
“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.
You are such an ignorant, pompous ass!
Furthermore I may be your daddy ‘cos I did it to your mother.
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.
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.
This “study” was, how can I put it politely, flawed.
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.
And curiously (not really) you point out nothing flawed. HA!
“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.
Your idiothy started talking about “scientific consensus” 😀
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%.
“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.
You forgot to include your number 6:
“6. I (you) am a fool, don’t listen to me”
Here you go:
6.Richard is a fukkin idiot.
He touched a nerve, you lost the argument
Yes, really 😉 More seriously, the principle is insult for insult.
“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”.
You Simple Simon are the next in the row not to listen to.
“You Simple Simon are the next in the row not to listen to.”
Haha…. but you did.
Exactly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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).
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.
“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?
“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….
“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.
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.
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”
TY. Did not know that.
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
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.
Consensus communication is propaganda.
Typical propaganda move. Discredit and silence objections with personal attacks.
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.
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.
They confuse a PhD in Science History with a PhD in Physics. It is a dermatological condition resulting from intimately stroking a tanned sheepskin.
Well, intimately stroking something !!
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.
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.
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,
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
The science isn’t good enough to prove humans are affecting the Earth’s weather patterns.
That’s a fact so often overlooked.
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.’
So…. most contrarians are 65 or older? Another way of saying that would be that most conformists are young and gullible…
Either that or those who have already retired, don’t have to worry about being fired for voicing their opinions.
Good point. Retirees can speak their minds.
They also are not dependent on the financial incentives of giving governments what they want to hear.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
to paraphrase Vladimir Ilich said : To win the war against capitalists we have to make it a civil war.
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.
Or actively work to suppress anything that they disagree with.
“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.
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.
Trofim Lysenko is alive and well and working in academia, wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt to his lectures.
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.
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.
The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older.
Age and Guile Beat Youth and Innocence ~ P.J. O’Rourke
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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!
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.
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.
That’s funny considering how few of the so called climate “scientists” have scientific or even technical degrees.
“changes in how certain areas (for example, meteorology) approach research” exactly: by abandoning the scientific method completely.
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%.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There would also be only one model that everyone used because it matched observations.
Not 114 of them that are all over the place.
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.
Well said. I was trying a different tack.
“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.
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?
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.
The consensus is now > 99%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
100% of the Politburo supports communism, eh simple?
Simple Simon proves that doubling down on idiocy just creates more idiocies
Simple Simon demonstrates that he doesn’t understand science.
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
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.
Additionally, the people doing the evaluating of these papers, were not impartial observers.
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.
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?
Putin approves of this message
“The consensus is now 110% !”
Good one! I busted out laughng. 🙂
Wow only 99% and yet still the unwashed masses won’t support it.
Lookout Simon has gone full retard.
Russia colluuuusion;)
You are a moron
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
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.
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.
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 !
Favorite quote, “Economists correctly predicted 7 out of the lat 3 recessions”
This old economist came to realize early in his career that we really were there just to make weather forecasters look good.
You could lay all the world’s economists end to end, and they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion.
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.
One does not have to be a PhD ichthyologist to recognize when a fish is rotting.
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.
A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education – G. B. Shaw
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.
I didn’t know that which does destroy the value of anything he says, although he can still come out with some truth.
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.
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.
Are they scientists or are they politicians pretending to be scientists? I think the latter are more common.
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?
“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.
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.
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”.
“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.
“Scientific revelations”, well said! The study could find no better words to express the religious character of mainstream climatology.
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.
The older crowd knows a scam when it sees it, right Mr. Mann?
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.
https://www.icaew.com/membership/cpd
Of course it is the old guys who dissent. They are retired and can’t be fired or lose grants for wrong think.
Not sure that economic schools have much to do with it. Is Putin a Friedmanite?
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.
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.
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
Who can be 97% for, reed this, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf
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
sovietliberal 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.
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.
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.
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”.
Here. It’s over.
https://videos.whatfinger.com/2019/09/22/my-gift-to-climate-alarmists-climate-alarmists-debunked/
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.