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
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.