Cook et al., 2013
Reviewed ONLY
the abstracts
of peer-reviewed
papers, from
1991 to 2011.
Claimed a
97% consensus
of scientists
about IPCC claims
( UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change )
about man made
CO2 causing most
of the global warming.
Legates et al. (2013),
a peer reviewed,
examination of the
Cook et al. 2013 study,
found that:
“ only 41 papers
( 0.3% )
of all 11,944 abstracts
and
only 1.0% of only those
4,014 abstracts that
expressed an opinion,
not 97%,
had been found to endorse
the standard or quantitative
( IPCC) hypothesis.”
Anderegg et al., 2010
Claimed to find
“97% – 98%"
of the
climate researchers
most actively publishing
in the field supported
IPCC claims about
anthropogenic
(man made)
climate change.
But this was not a
survey of scientists.
Anderegg simply
counted the number
of articles he found
on the Internet,
published in
academic journals,
by 908 scientists.
And falsely a
ssumed
abstracts of
their papers
accurately
reflected
their findings.
What Anderegg
actually discovered
is a small clique
of climate alarmists
who had their
names added
to hundreds
of articles
published in
academic journals,
something that
would have been
considered
unethical
just a decade
or two ago.
Anderegg asserted
that those “top 50"
are more credible
than scientists
who publish
less often, but
he made no effort
to prove that.
No one asked
if the authors
believed that
global warming
is a serious problem,
or if the science
was sufficiently
established
to be the basis
for public policy.
Doran and Zimmerman, 2009
They claimed
“97% of climate
scientists agree”
that
global average
temperatures
have risen since
before the 1800s,
and that humans
are a significant
contributing factor.
The authors
deliberately
excluded:
Solar scientists,
space scientists,
cosmologists,
physicists,
meteorologists
and astronomers.
Doing that eliminated
thousands of scientists
most likely to think
that the Sun, or the
planetary movements,
might have
something to do
with Earth's climate.
That left a total of
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 authors get
their fraudulent
“97%" of climate
scientists believe"
conclusion,
by focusing on
only 79 scientists
out of all 3,146
responses !
79 climate scientists
is hardly a representative
sample of scientific opinion.
Oreskes, 2004
Oreskes is not a scientist.
And she reported
examining only abstracts
from 928 scientific papers,
listed in the Institute for
Scientific Information database,
published in scientific journals
from 1993 and 2003,
using the key search words
“global climate change.”
Using the search term
“global climate change”
instead of just
“climate change”,
resulted in her finding
fewer than
one-thirteenth
of the estimated
total count of
scientific papers
on "climate change",
over the stated period.
Perhaps that
was deliberate ?
She concluded
75% of the abstracts
either implicitly
or explicitly
supported IPCC’s view
that human activities
were responsible for
most of the warming
over the previous
50 years, and made
the amazing false claim
that NO ONE dissented !
Oreskes’ methodology
assumed a nonscientist
like her could determine
the findings of
scientific research
by reading only abstracts
of the published papers.
Even trained
climate scientists
are unable to do that,
because abstracts often
do not accurately reflect
the articles’ actual findings.
Medical researcher
Klaus-Martin Schulte
used the
same database
and search terms
as Oreskes,
to examine
papers published
from 2004 to
February 2007.
He found that
fewer than half
endorsed the
“IPCC consensus”,
and only 7%
did so explicitly.
A group of Canadian
retired Earth and
atmospheric scientists,
called themselves
"Friends of Science".
They produced
a 2014 report
that reviewed
four popular
climate change
surveys, and abstract
-counting exercises.
Friends of Science claim
honest conclusions, based
on ALL the data received,
without selective editing,
would have been:
(A)
Oreskes actually found
only 1.2% agreement,
(B)
Doran and Zimmerman
actually found
only 3.4% agreement,
(C)
Anderegg et al.
actually found
66% agreement,
and
(D)
Cook et al.
actually found
only 0.54%
agreement.
There was no
97%, 98% or 100%
consensus on
human-caused
global warming,
as claimed in the
four fake studies.
Modern climate
"science" was the
original fake news.
It consists of
wild guess,
scary predictions
of the future climate,
that are 100% wrong !
These
predictions
started with
Roger Revelle,
in the late 1950s.
The leftist-biased
mainstream press
consistently ignores
how inaccurate the
climate predictions
have been.
But they'll publish
any predictions
that claim the
future climate
will be a disaster !
It should be
no surprise
that fake climate
predictions are
supported by
fake consensus
"studies".
Of course
real science
is NOT based
on a popular vote
of scientists.
Claiming a
consensus
is proof of
something,
is a logical
fallacy called
an "Appeal to
Authority".
In the history
of science,
a strong
"consensus"
was only evidence
that the underlying
science was wrong --
-- ranging from
slightly wrong, to
completely wrong.
Progress
in real science
is almost always
from individuals,
or small teams,
that prove the
scientific
consensus
was wrong,
often after years
of facing many
character attacks!
The fake
97% surveys
are used to support
climate junk science,
led by government
bureaucrats, all
predicting a coming
climate catastrophe,
( for the past 34 years ! )
to ensure their own
permanent job security:
(1)
Predict a
climate crisis
every year.
(2)
Reason given:
"Because we
are big shots:
We work for
the government,
and we have
advanced science
degrees ...
and we say so ! "
(3)
Claim you must be right,
because almost everyone
you know agrees with you !
(4)
Claim that 97%
of scientists agree,
so the science
must be "settled".
As if science
is ever settled !