Science or Science Fiction? 97% climate consensus crumbles in survey

This is an oldie, but goodie, but worth revisiting in the context of today’s false belief that there is a 97% consensus. It would be interesting to see the exact same study done again today. It seems that, inconveniently,  a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all – but it isn’t the one you think.…

Advertisements

Is climate alarmist consensus about to shatter?

Foreword by Paul Driessen A new study by climatologists Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry concludes that Earth’s “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) to more atmospheric carbon dioxide is as much as 50% lower than climate alarmists have been claiming. That their paper was published in the Journal of Climate  suggests that the asserted “97% consensus” of…

‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.10 Jan 20183,113 From Breitbart and No Tricks Zone: A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine. Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at…

97 Articles Refuting The '97% Consensus' on global warming

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have…

If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped

John Cook’s methodology proves that there is a “pause consensus”. Guest essay by Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute The central premise of “global warming” is that human greenhouse-gas emissions will lead to a rise in the earth’s average surface temperature, and that as emissions…

The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus

The Cook ratings document contains some incredible remarks, one of which is documented here.  According to it, “the training period in the initial stages of the rating period” covered more than half the ratings they did.  What kind of training period covers half of your project?! Guest post by Brandon Schollenberger Last month, I highlighted…