Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Sep 16, 2013.

  1. jem

    jem

    97% claim exposed / debunked.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/


    “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

    PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

    A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

    A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

    The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

    The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
     
  2. David Russell Legates is a Professor of Geography[1][2] at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university,[3] [4] and a former Delaware State Climatologist.[5]
     
  3. stu

    stu

    only a "0.3% climate consensus" exposed /debunked

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/

    "Nowhere in Cook’s paper is the year 1950 mentioned, nor does the word "dangerous" appear anywhere.

    If Legates et al are arguing that only papers explicitly stating that warming since 1950 is anthropogenic count as consensual, then it’s surprising that they found as many as 0.3%.

    You only have to look at what gets published every month in Environmental Research Letters to realize that the Legates et al conclusion is patently absurd - at least half the papers take AGW a given fact." [Emphasis added]


    According to the News Journal, "the Union of Concerned Scientists published a study listing Legates among several scientists it described as 'familiar spokespeople from ExxonMobil-funded organizations' that have regularly taken stands or sponsored reports questioning the science behind climate change warnings."[11] Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute,[12] a research fellow with the Independent Institute,[13] and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,[14] all of which have received funding from ExxonMobil. [wikipedia]
     
  4. stu

    stu

    In February 2007, Delaware governor Ruth Ann Minner wrote a letter to Legates stating "Your views on climate change, as I understand them, are not aligned with those of my administration,". The letter directed Legates to stop using his title as state climatologist of Delaware in his public statements related to climate change. [wikipedia]
     
  5. Eight

    Eight

    Oh shit, the Union of Concerned Scientists! Weren't they the same bunch that went batshit when Reagan proposed Star Wars... because the Soviets couldn't keep up? Who wants to hear from shit like that?

    That author doesn't like it that ExxonMobil can fund research! Tough shit bitch, have money will travel and all that. His publicly funded research is holy and private sector research is dirty? More often it's the other way around. The whole public sector is up for sale and they run specials if you agree with their philosophy so sometimes even bullshit artists like the Union of Concerned Scientists can get a little.

    This is how Marxists/Globalists/etc. work: They cite papers that cite other papers that cite other papers and eventually the trail leads back to a paper that doesn't cite anything at all. They are professional liars iow. Gotta watch out for garbage dumping right onto our screens from sources like that.
     
  6. Ricter

    Ricter

    You're in a rambling mood today. In spite of all this, the 0.3% claim is false.
     
  7. Let me fix this for you - "You're in a rambling mood today. In spite of all this, the 97%% claim is false."
     
  8. Ricter

    Ricter

    Agreed, it's somewhere between 90 and 95%.
     
  9. Actually in surverys performed this year it is well below 50% and sinking rapidly as many scientists now see 'global warming' as a complete farce and do not want their reputations associated with it.
     
  10. jem

    jem

    My unscientific reading of the recent reviews of the surveys which categorized the papers -- breaks it down to about this...


    The number who say man is causing part of the warming seems to be somewhere from 35 % to 50%.

    The number who say we do not know seems to go from 35% to well north of 70%.

    Very few papers are concluding man made co2 is causing warming.
    That could be about .3%.
     
    #10     Sep 17, 2013