The “97% Consensus” on Global Warming is Total BS – Why Do Obama and other Alarmists Continue to Tout It?

global warming hoax is polar bear crapJohn Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia came up with the oft-quoted number, based on an examination  he conducted of scientific papers. Members of the media and others, who consider his methodology questionable, want to see his research and the papers he used to cook up his claim, but the university is suing to block access.

If he’s right and his methods are on the up-and-up, what’s he got to hide? Sounds like a case of eco-bullshit to me. Obama, and other alarmists like him, want to scare the benighted masses into going along with massive carbon-control schemes and other programs designed to cripple the use of fossil fuels, and crush our economy.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

Queensland’s legal fight with Schollenberger comes while UK news outlets are reporting that one of the world’s top scientific journals rejected a study from five climate scientists for political reasons.

The UK Times reported that a reviewer with the journal Environmental Research Letters rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, told the Times.

Bengtsson was one of the study’s authors and recently joined the camp of scientists skeptical of global warming.

via Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Come From? | The Daily Caller.

1 comment
  1. MulroyBay said:

    A fundamentally flawed analysis.

    There is, admittedly, something a bit embarrassing about the 97% number- which is consistent across a wide range of studies beyond Cook’s. Oreskes 2004, Doran 2009 and Anderegg 2010 had similar results. There was a more nuanced German study that showed a 90%+ agreement with the IPCC, but in that case some of the dissenters thought the UN report understated the risks.

    One of the ways to tell if this is a respectable scientific opinion or not is to go to the energy company websites. Given that they support Heartland, WattsUpWithThat and other “climate skeptic” sites, you might expect that they would counter an opinion held by 0.3% of scientists.

    In fact, they all, universally, endorse the UN IPCC report and trumpet what they are doing to address the problem. Why, because they rely on flacks to tout the anti-scientific nonsense and try to align themselves with a point of view that will be taken seriously. It is a fact that every major international scientific organization take human-driven climate change seriously. The test of good science is making predictions that turn out to be accurate. The CO2 climate change side has. The “skeptic side trots out a conspiracy theory, drops red-meat names like Al Gore (an ad hominem fallacious attack) and then relies on a general lack of scientific knowledge and opposition to change to win the day. Actually it is working pretty well, given the lack of evidence on their side. Your side, to be completely accurate.

    Science should not be political. The evidence should speak for itself. The collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet- a phenomenon that is not based on climate models but on measured changes in ice mass- has long been a predicted outcome of warmer oceans.

    Climate change is about the entire system. The fact that the surface temperatures rise on a decadal level, allowing the cherry picking of an earlier warm year to hide the fact that the warmest years on record have been in the past decade, is a red herring. Most of the warming is being absorbed by the oceans- which have roughly 250X the mass of the atmosphere. They are slower to change, and hence slower to recover.

    The draconian solutions of the left may not be palatable. But ignoring the problem is a recipe for delay until they are the only ones that are left. What meaning does “conservative” have, if conservation of the climate is off the table?

%d bloggers like this: