Total Pageviews

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

97% of scientists don't agree -- and it would not matter if they did -- future climate change is unknown -- past climate change has been 100% good news ( for the past 20,000 years ) !


The "CO2 is Evil" cult
is based on 
junk science --
scary wild guesses 
of the future climate 
are made every year,
and they were very wrong 
for 30 years in a row.












Those of us 
who respect real science,
consider three decades
of very wrong 
wild guess predictions
of the future climate, 
to be strong evidence
that climate science 
is NOT "settled" !

In response, we get 
character attacked,
by leftists, 
as "science deniers", 
( which actually describes 
the "CO2 is Evil" cult
very well ! )

Then we are also told 
97% of scientists 
agree ( on something ),
so please shut up
-- there will be 
no debates !





Any scientific hypothesis 
where 97% of scientists agree
is very unusual in real science.

Skepticism underpins real science.

Scientific conclusions are not based on 
a show of hands, a consensus, politics, 
or feelings, except for junk science. 




Scientists should be independent. 

But big research grants 
for climate “science” 
are waved in front of them,
and the grants only pay for
the demonization of  CO2,
and fossil fuels 
that release CO2 
when burned.

It's difficult to get any other 
conclusion published.

Remember that as you read:





Doran and Zimmerman, 2009

A paper by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, 
a University of Illinois student, 
and her master’s thesis advisor, 
Peter Doran, was published in EOS. 

They claimed “97% of climate 
scientists agree” that mean 
global temperatures have risen 
since before the 1800s 
and that humans are 
a significant contributing factor.

The researchers sent 
a two-minute online survey 
to 10,257 Earth scientists 
working for universities and 
government research agencies, 
generating 3,146 responses.

The two researchers 
started out by excluding 
thousands of scientists 
most likely to think 
that the Sun, 
or planetary movements, 
might have something to do 
with the climate on Earth.

They 
deliberately excluded:
solar scientists, 
space scientists, 
cosmologists, 
physicists, 
meteorologists 
and astronomers. 

That left the 10,257 scientists 
in disciplines such as geology, 
oceanography, paleontology, 
and geochemistry.

Note that only 5% 
of the respondents 
self-identified 
as climate scientists.



The survey asked 
two questions:

“Q1. 
When compared 
with pre-1800s levels, 
do you think that 
mean global temperatures 
have generally risen, fallen, 
or remained 
relatively constant?

-- I would answer "risen", 
but then caution that the 
global average includes 
more wild guesses, than
actual measurements, 
and those actual measurements
are often "adjusted", so it is
possible there was no warming.

( 90% answered “risen” to question 1 ) 



"Q2. 
Do you think 
human activity 
is a significant 
contributing factor 
in changing 
mean global 
temperatures?”

-- I don't know 
what "significant" means,
but I would answer "yes", 
because I believe 
it's possible humans 
have caused "significant
warming",  maybe only 
from faulty measurements 
and economic growth
near weather stations !

- Faulty measurements:
--- "Adjustments" to raw data, 
---- Wild guesses of temperatures
made for a majority of the Earth's
surface, where there are 
no thermometers, 
and 

- Economic growth over time: 
Building roads, parking lots,
buildings, airport runways, etc. 
in the vicinity of land-based 
thermometers.

( 82% percent answered “yes” to question 2.  )




The authors get 
their fraudulent “97% 
of climate scientists believe” 
sound bite, by focusing
on only 79 scientists 
out of 3,146 responses !

They kept "editing" the responses
until they got the "right answer".

The 79 scientists were those
who listed climate science 
as their area of expertise, 
and who had published 
more than 50% of their
recent peer-reviewed papers 
on the subject of climate change.

But ... most skeptics 
of man-made 
global warming,
including me, 
would answer
those two questions 
the same way 
CO2 alarmists would. 

The responses 
were whittled down 
to only 77 
"climate scientists”, 
of whom 75
 ( only 2.38% )
were judged to agree 
that man made warming 
was taking place. 

The 97% figure came from 
only 75 responses to 10,257 
mailed surveys!

What were the criteria 
for completely rejecting 
3,069 of 3,146 replies?

None of your 
@$#%& business !

Only 79 climate scientists,
is not a representative sample 
of scientific opinion.






Cook et al., 2013
Another paper claimed 
published scientific papers 
showed there was a 97.1% 
consensus that man had caused 
at least half of the +0.7 degree C.
global warming since 1950. 

That just happens to be 
the UN's IPCC position 
( actually, "over 50% is their wild guess ! ).


A paper by John Cook, 
an Australia-based blogger, 
and some of his friends, 
published in Environmental 
Research Letters, 
reviewed the abstracts 
of peer-reviewed papers, 
from 1991 to 2011.

The 97.1% was determined
by the “inspection” 
of 11,944 published papers. 

"Inspection" appears to mean 
just reading the abstracts.

There was no critical reading 
of the papers, by real scientists, 
who were qualified
to understand the papers !

Most of the papers
were not about 
climate change, 
and its causes, 
but they were taken 
as evidence anyway. 

Papers on carbon taxes, 
for example, 
naturally assume 
that carbon dioxide 
emissions cause
global warming
– but merely using 
that assumption 
in a paper, 
does not mean 
your own paper 
does anything 
to support 
the assumption.

The study started in March 2012
 and was published in mid-2013.




The methodology section 
of the publication said:
   “This letter was conceived 
as a ‘citizen science’ project 
by volunteers contributing 
to the Skeptical Science website 
(www.skepticalscience.com)." 

"In March 2012, 
we searched 
the Institute for 
Scientific Information 
Web of Science, 
for papers published 
from 1991-2011 
using topic searches 
for ‘global warming’ 
or ‘global climate change’.”

   My translation: 
This so called "study" 
was based on opinions,
from reading 
study abstracts,
as "interpreted"
by biased, 
non-scientific, 
politically motivated 
volunteer activists, 
who mislead people
by calling themselves
“citizen scientists”.





A critical scientific analysis 
of the original 11,944 papers,
done by real scientists,  
came to an opposite 
conclusion: 

Of the 11,944 papers, 
only 41 explicitly stated
humans caused 
most of the warming 
since 1950 ( 0.3% ) . 

So, that means
99.7% of the papers
did not explicitly say 
carbon dioxide caused 
most of the 
global warming 
since 1950. 

And not one paper predicted 
a coming man-made 
global warming catastrophe.


The claim of 
a 97% consensus
is a complete fraud.