Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
July 13, 2016
By Paul Homewood
The most succinct put down of the 97% fraud, which I have seen yet.
23 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
GeoffB on Gaviscon For Cows Micky R on Welcome To Basket Case Br… mwhite on Gaviscon For Cows Iain Reid on Welcome To Basket Case Br… Micky R on Ross Clark: The EU’s Net… Micky R on Chris Morrison: Net Zero is co… Gray on Welcome To Basket Case Br… Grimskald on Gas Boiler Manufacturers Face… Grimskald on Gas Boiler Manufacturers Face… Grimskald on Gas Boiler Manufacturers Face…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
They agree there’s pots of money on offer if you sign up to the man-made warming delusion.
Em, no saying “97% say” is simply BS cos it’s the Fallacy of Agument from Authoritiy
All that counts is the SCIENIFIC ARGUMENT itself
…NOT who or the numbwer of people make it.
whether you are talking amount climate, vaccines, killer meteorites ..whatwever
secondly liberals will quickly dismiss the PragerU source
#1 It’s not a real uniovwersity
#2 It’s the nearest thing I ever seen to mythical big oil funding
If your funding depends on it and you are so poorly qualified that you cannot get another job then certainly you are going to agree – and 97% of them fall exactly into that category by definition.
Yes, a good and factually correct analysis.
This is good, but could be improved. And there is also the other main claim of “multiple lines of evidence.” Here’s my talking points on this.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/talking-climate/
Alarmist reactions to this video will be predictable. They’ll start along the lines of: “I’ll bet this guy is in the pay of fossil fuel..”, and: “how are we to believe something that attempts to support the use of evil fossil fuels”, a self-fulfilling prophecy by starting out with a false premise. It’ll be very unlikely that any responses will even examine the actual content, let alone make any attempt to refute.
Speaking of self-fulfilling: the irony will be that their responses will be cases in point for the video; the double irony being that many will swallow them whole.
I know someone people who a definitely part of the (at least) 3%
Willie Soon (et al.)’s latest
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B.ROBINSON, NOAH E.ROBINSON, and WILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]
Knickers will be knotted no doubt, especially this from the conclusion…
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
I’m waiting for 97% of these scientists to tell us how our modern societies can survive without the enormous benefits of fossil fuels.
To be fair to proper scientists, that’s not their job. Their job is science, not how we should respond to what science finds.
If anything irks me more than bad science, it’s scientists (or other experts such as doctors), using the Authority fallacy to tell us how we should tax things or change our economic and financial systems in response to their findings.
Their so-called science is in fact useless because it is based on a bad mistake in 1976 (R D Cess assumed OLR/surface exitance is Earth’s emissivity when emissivity ONLY applies to equal temperature emission).
This apparently created the ‘Global mean greenhouse flux’ concept; Earth’s surface shining through its atmosphere like a bathroom IR lamp shining through steam, in turning claiming that exitance is a real energy flux.
The 1976 GISS modelling paper justified this by assuming ‘negative convection’; there ain’t no such physics.
The GMGF concept would only be the case in a vacuum: Earth’s radiatively active atmosphere is not a vacuum. In reality, there is net zero surface IR emission hence heating of Earth’s atmosphere in all self-absorbed GHG bands (the thermodynamic proof will come later!).
In short, the GCMs are worse than useless in that they are based on what is tantamount to science fraud, admitted in 2000 by James Hansen ton an AIP interviewer.
I do hope these 97% or whatever the statistic really is, of Climate Alchemists, explain to us lesser mortals why yesterday in Germany there was heavy snow down to 1500 m: http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/14/europeans-stunned-as-winter-strikes-in-mid-july-snow-down-to-only-1500-meters-extremely-rare/
This weather is extremely rare in July.
And the worst thing of all is, we ARE in a changing climate cycle system! For the last 2.5 million years, we go from extreme cold with huge glaciers to quite warm and pleasant with the glacial periods all lasting ten times longer than the warming periods.
This is extremely scary and we are not cautioned about this by our rulers who are simply intent on two things: forcing us to conserve oil so only they get to use it and to impose dicatorships on democracies.
How cynical could you get?
[Way past you myself…….!]
Eptstein missed a couple of things in this excellent video:
1. The Argument from Consensus is itself a logical fallacy. A good discussion of this in in Wikipedia, “Argument Ad Populum”
2. The original survey that led to the 97% consensus bunk was done by two graduate students at the University Of Illinois in 2009. Art Horn, in an article titled “97% Is Not What You Think”, thoroughly debunked this survey. He showed that the 97% figure ended up being 79 scientists carefully culled from the respondents. That is .0014% of the world’s 5.8 million scientists. The Cook survey was done in 2013. The article is available here:
Click to access NinteySevenpercentnotwhatyouthink1.28.12.pdf
Perhaps it’s that up to 97% of scientists pay and pensions are reliant on them giving at least some lip-service to the politically mandated assertion that AGW is real.
OT, but this sounds interesting
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/14/britain-abolishes-the-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/
JoNova also on the story
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/the-rise-of-the-skeptics-brexit-shifts-the-ground-boris-promoted-decc-gone/
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Considering Purdue and MIT have concluded that mercury based vaccines are highly coordinated with autism and other debilitating conditions, I think your vaccine parallel weakens your argument. There are many better parallels.
97% of Catholic priests believe in God.
97.1% agree climate change is real http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Only 1.6% agree that more than half of warming is due to AGW
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/