Friday, May 30, 2014

The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

The myth of the 97% climate change consensus. What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming? Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston […]

http://ift.tt/SkPwKf

14 comments:

jzf said...

The myth of the myth of the 97% is closer to the truth. No one believes you anymore. Denial kills, whether for fun or for profit.

Martin Cothran said...

jzf,

Your comment is characteristic of the level of reason and evidence offered by your side in the debate. Thanks for helping to prove the point.

Singring said...

'Your comment is characteristic of the level of reason and evidence offered by your side in the debate.'

LOL.

What level of reason and evidence are you adding - I distinctly remember you saying repeatedly here that you have no scientific competence whatsoever - in fact you have used your complete scientific ignorance to defend your refusal to take any position on the age of the earth.

And yet here you are, merrily and confidently linking to a website that does nothing but distort science - so how have you determined they are presenting science accurately? What scientific knowledge has led you to conclude the post you link to is reliable.

I suggest you check some of the sources said article cites to see how hilariously selectively they have to cite their sources to pretend there's a 'myth'.

Quote-mining, it's a time-honoured tradition of denialists.

Anonymous said...

It's hot, it's cold. It's colder, it's hotter. The ice is melting,the ice is re-freezing. It's our fault, it's cow farts, it's volcanoes. We're all gonna die. Amen

Anonymous said...

How dare Singring deny Manbearpig?

Martin Cothran said...

So Singring (and JZF) can I take it that you are defending the claim that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous"?

If you are, I'm sort of surprised that you don't actually give any evidence for it but settle instead for ad hominem arguments.

Singring said...

'If you are, I'm sort of surprised that you don't actually give any evidence for it but settle instead for ad hominem arguments.'

I have provided you with evidence in the past, which you have completely ignored. In fact, on one post regarding climate change you said (and I wish I could find it now to quote you directly, but the search is not bringing it up) that you didn't need to check my evidence.

If that's your attitude, then how can you expect me to do the hard work of listing it for you when you're either going to never respond to it or tell me you don't have to check it anyway?

Moreover, since you (self-admittedly) lack any scientific expertise whatsoever, how could you possibly be able to tell reliable, sound evidence from bad, skewed or wrongly presented evidence?

In this case, however, I'm in luck, because some rather clever climate scientist have already addressed this nonsense ,myth' issue right here (which of course you could have found in one minute using google, but that's apparently too much to ask for some people):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rebutting-new-tcp-myths-andrew-neil-richard-tol.html

But lest it be said that I can't do my own research, let me just point out one of the misleading comments on the blog post you have linked to.

It claims:

"Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose or disagree with the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous."

Now, if you follow that link to the survey it cites, you will find that only 52% of respondents to that study had a PhD (plus 28 % MSc or MA) and only 41% worked in research. Only 56 % had published research in the past 5 years. In fact only 13% (!!!) of those surveyed describe themselves as 'Climate Scientists'.

This is why sites like wattsupwiththat and their ilk are misleading. Their entire idea is to mislead.

I'm not surprised you fall for it though, seeing as you don't care to follow up the evidence and don't have the expertise to evaluate it at least at a basic level.

So how can that study possibly be used to draw conclusions only about scientists? Of course, this detail is omitted by the author. As is the finding that

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Let me ask the question again: Do you defend the claim that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous"?

Singring said...

Why do I even bother?

Anonymous said...

So why does America keep on getting German manufacturing jobs? Because of much, much cheaper energy costs that eco-libs like Singring insist on keeping high in Germany to please the environmental lobby. German industry seems to be barking about that lately...let's hope Angela doesn't p off Vladimir anytime time soon. Well, maybe if she does we'll get even more German plants over here. Sauerkraut, y'all.

Martin Cothran said...

Bother to do what? Make a distinction between all scientists and "scientists actively publishing climate research" [whose very professional life is dependent upon finding what they are looking for] as the article you link to states?

Yeah. I see your problem.

Art said...

From the linked blog (I don't know if its the same article, but as long as Martin is using such a cryptic method ...)

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that.

Not according to Martin.

5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.

Not according to Martin.

6. IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Yes, a great deal of it.

Not according to Martin.

7. ARE THERE GOOD SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN THE IPCC 2014 REPORT? Yes,

Not according to Martin.

8. ARE THERE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENTS AT PLACES IN THE REPORT? Yes, there are.

Not according to Martin.

4. 8. Warmer and drier conditions during the early growing season in high-elevation habitats in Colorado are disrupting the timing of various flowering patterns, with potential impacts on many important plant-pollinator relationships.77 “Disrupting” is a politically loaded term. The scientific term would be “changed” and this is a good sign, showing the adaptability of species to changing environments.

Um, Dr. Botkin, you are wrong about this. This issue is not adaptability - the changes in flowering patterns reflect inherent physiological responses that are thrown out of sorts by persisting warmer and drier conditions. Plants are not "adapting", they are obeying physiological and molecular rules that have been established by evolution (something Martin does not think happens, but that's another comment in another thread).

Singring said...

'Bother to do what? Make a distinction between all scientists and "scientists actively publishing climate research" [whose very professional life is dependent upon finding what they are looking for] as the article you link to states?'

Conservatism in a nutshell:

When you're trying to deny something, it's really important to show that scientists actually don't consent on that something, parading 'scientists' or 'scientific data' that supposedly support your argument.

When you're caught citing bogus data that does not accurately reflect scientific consensus, you claim that it doesn't matter what scientists think or how well the data support your claim, because...because...

It's all a liberal conspiracy of a scientistic cabal and I don't need your stinkin' data anyway!!!!!!

It's like trying to catch a fish swimming through lubrican oil with your bare hands.

Complete, intellectual bankrupcy - an ideological system that is immune to refutation because any contradictory evidence can be denied by playing the 'conspiracy' card.

'[whose very professional life is dependent upon finding what they are looking for]'

The fastest way to fame in science is to find strong evidence that a current paradigm is false.

So in fact, most scientists are hoping to find what everyone else is thinking is wrong.

But I don't blame you - you wouldn't know, seeing as you're ignorant of science.

Anonymous said...

global warming is a hoax. there has been no global warming on earth for the past 15 years. why? because the sunspot activity has lessened.
that is right- earth's temps are connected to solar activity- not human activity. the majority of climate scientists know this. but somehow there are couch potatoes here who do not.

Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18319-obama-s-alarmist-climate-report-debunked-by-scientists

Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud

CLEVELAND METEOROLOGIST REJECT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/03/cleveland-area-tv-meteorologists-disagree-with-prevailing-attitude-about-climate-change/

Wyoming rejects Bogus Global Warming science standards

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/wyoming-is-1st-state-to-reject-science-standards/2014/05/08/f124be80-d6e4-11e3-8f7d-7786660fff7c_story.html


Global-Warming is a Hoax Base on JunkScience

http://yuuuuup8000.blogspot.com/2014/03/to-date-not-one-of-theirs-and-other.html