How To Counter The “97% Of Scientists Say” Argument
April 26, 2014
By Paul Homewood
Whenever anybody uses the “97% of scientists agree blah,blah” argument, just ask them a couple of questions.
1) What is it exactly that the 97% agree?
The answer will likely be “global warming”, “climate change” or variations of the theme.
If so, ask them this.
2) How many of these agree that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”?
The answer is just 1.6%.
3) Then ask “How many agree that global warming/climate change this century will be “dangerous”?”
This is, of course, a trick question. The survey did not carry out this analysis.
They might actually be surprised at the answers.
The full analysis of the 97% paper is here.
8 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
100% of Alchemists believed they can turn lead into gold.
Must be true.
99% of doctors believed ulcers were caused by stress.
Must be true.
Thanks for reminding us of this excellent analysis Paul.
My submission to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee AR5 inquiry may also be of interest: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191
I review the Cook paper at 3.2 (iii).
Ask them about „nature change“; 97% scientists, and maybe 100% of the rest of us will agree that this is the case, if “nature change” is defined as “a change in the state of nature that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period.”
Actually the definition is from WMO, IPCC, etc, saying: “Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.”
Worst enough! Even worst, climate is defined as “average weather”. Beware to ask them what weather is. They use the word, without explaining it. More at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
Is ‘climate science’ a science if they do not know, or ignore that:
____ Clear and unambiguous definitions of all terms used are a prerequisite for any meaningful communication, and for sound scientific work.
I sent another open message to the Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee today
Click to access Open_Message.pdf
Because no member of the fictional 97% consensus science community was willing to publicly address nine pages of precise experimental data that show Earth’s heat source – the Sun is:
1. A pulsar that
2. Made our elements
3. Birthed the solar system
4. Sustained the origin and evolution of life
5. Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today . . .
All controlled by neutron repulsion, the source of energy forbidden from public knowledge after destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
At issue is Congressional control over the budgets of research agencies that have been deceiving the public about AGW.
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley trumped the ‘97% consensus’ with his ‘99.5% consensus’
It follows his deconstruction here:-
Former Nasa scientist Professor Les Woodcock says global warming is nonsense
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/26/Former-NASA-Scientist-Global-Warming-is-Nonsense
But Nasa claims there is 97% consensus.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
”2) How many of these agree that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”?”
This is loaded question; because: it hasn’t being any ”recent” GLOBAL warming: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
We deconstructed the NASA ‘consensus’ reports and found serious math manipulations and that the 97% number is a psychological social proof. Please share: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf