Skip to content

Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

April 13, 2017

By Paul Homewood





The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.

According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.

I make that 1.6%, not 97%.

Full details are here.

Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.

But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.

If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.


Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:


The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

  1. AlecM permalink
    April 13, 2017 6:05 pm

    Co2 cannot cause global warming because to do so the surface and neaar-surface IR would have to be separate energy streams behaving as Planck, Bose and Einstein predicted. However, their work only applied to a vacuum. A GHG containing atmosphere is not a vacuum.

    Explanation: Planck worked out that at equilibrium between two black body emitters the opposite energy streams in the intervening space had a finite velocity, hence there was a minimum net Maxwellian energy flux, the vector sum. with any GHG band, the flux is produced at a virtual surface in contact with the second virtual surface. Since a fully self-absorbed GHG band is a black body emitter/absorber, there is zero distance.

  2. HotScot permalink
    April 13, 2017 6:32 pm

    Of those 64 papers, Monckton found 23 were mis-allocated, in terms of Cook’s own definition thereby reducing the real number to 0.3%.

    Two thoughts on that:

    Either the research was badly run, in which case the authors are incompetent, or;

    It was deemed necessary to reach a favourable conclusion, no matter how dishonest the methods, because they knew there was no concecus.

    Now being that I’m not a scientist, and having looked at what research there is, I conclude the latter is the most likely option. Simply because even with my limited abilities, I could have come up with a better research criteria than Cook did.

  3. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 13, 2017 6:45 pm

    The trouble is, the 97% is out there and most politicians believe it an quote it.
    Anyone who says different is a “climate denier”.
    In this respect they have won the propaganda war.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      April 13, 2017 8:00 pm

      Partly because the 97% “protagonists” were essentially dishonest from the word ‘go’ with the possible exception of Zimmerman who at least “showed her working” even though she started with two basic questions to which even 97% of sceptics would have given affirmative answers and even then she whittled it down to a number that rendered the whole thing a joke.

      Anderegg and Cook were just flummoxing and obfuscation. Cook should have been laughed off the stage by his own side; his research didn’t even reach the level of being a joke. Still less his paper!

      The other reason why they have won the propaganda war so far (I live in hope) is that those on “our” side who might be able to sow a few seeds of doubt insist on arguing the science. This was never, ever about science. It was environmental politics from day one and a reading of the literature surrounding the whole edifice makes that abundantly clear. Science has been suborned in the service if eco-activism and until that argument is made by those who are listened to nothing will change the politicians’ minds — probably not even a new LIA. There is too much money, credibility, and political power invested in what has turned into a major “conspiracy against the people”, however sincere, albeit misguided, it may have been to start with.

    • Dave Matz permalink
      April 14, 2017 7:18 pm

      What I suggest to anyone who says that “All Scientist Agree” or “97% of Scientists Agree on Global Warming” is 1) Can you show me any studies that concluded that? Most know of no studies but heard it all over the media, from NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC. I ask if they can find any science for why these groups believe that CO2 is more than 50% of the cause of warming. Never an answer.

      Then I send them the Abstract from Cook’s 97% article. This is where where I think everybody’s belief comes from. Cook doesn’t put into all the details in the abstract, or even in
      the paper, but even Non-Tech people can read the Abstract and conclude,
      “Say What?” “‘You can’t throw out all the data you don’t like before you calculate
      the percentages, and you can’t clump everyone who can spell CO2 into the group that is alarmed about it causing runaway global temperatures.

      I don’t think I’ve convinced anyone. They just get mad. But it makes me feel
      so much better.

  4. April 14, 2017 12:54 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  5. Dung permalink
    April 14, 2017 9:46 am

    If we are going to look at the science (and I agree with Mike J that we do not need to) why not look at geology? Our geologists tell us that at no time in the history of the planet has warming been preceded by rising CO2; always the reverse is shown to be the case.

  6. Max Sawyer permalink
    April 14, 2017 10:34 am

    As I have posted before (and will probably post again), the persistence of the AGW nonsense has nothing to do with science and has no longer much to do with money (that we continue to pay through the nose for has become incidental) – it is all now essentially to do with political capital. Politicians worldwide have so locked themselves into the pointless promotion of “greenery” that they can see no escape without a serious loss of face. That, of course, would never do, so it will persist until politicians appear with the courage to break ranks and say “enough” – a forlorn hope, I fear.

  7. April 14, 2017 6:39 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009:

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: