Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
...
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
...
“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added
...
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

 

How the lie of global warming consensus among scientists came to pass
http://www.examiner.com/article/how...rming-consensus-among-scientists-came-to-pass

The subject of global warming is losing its steam. The world is giving up on climate change, the hot air promoted by the pundits, and the lie that continues to buy power and profit.

The so-called ‘scientific consensus’ about global warming was crafted from manipulated data, expressed as a lie that says 97% of the world’s climate scientists agree that the science of warming is settled. The pundits and press passed it on to a believing public.

Except it’s wrong. And the public that believed it are looking like fools. Here’s how the ruse happened, acccording to Lawrence Soloman in Financial Post.

There are 2500 scientists associated with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). All 2500, the media believed, endorsed the IPCC’s position on catastrophic global warming predictions. Bad factoid #1: the 2500 scientists were only associated with the IPCC. They did not endorse the IPCC’s position. Some even vehemently disagreed.

Seeking a powerful number they could use more easily, the pundits found a study conducted by the University of Illinois. More than 10,000 earth scientists participated in the study, but the researchers conducting the study highlighted the views of only a cherry-picked 77 of them. Of those, 75 stated their belief of human-caused global warming. Voila! 75 is 97% of 77. Bad factoid #2: The press passed this off as 97% of the world’s scientists believe in manmade climate change. Wow. That's a big number that's easy to pass on.

Once the eminently quotable percentage was out, other studies either used faked data or manufactured concurring results on the number of scientists believing in manmade global warming.

One such study, conducted at the University of Toronto, determined which scientists were credible enough to participate with their ‘scientific’ opinions on climate. Such ‘scientists’ included Al Gore, self-proclaimed "Inventor of the Internet," and NASA’s Jim Hansen, noted especially for choosing the data that shows what he wants. Of 615 participating scientists in the Toronto study, only 14 were climate skeptics.

While we have an unknowing media that seeks to spread stories that sell of horrific global warming, we have complicit studies that purport to show the science as settled and a near monopoly of scientists settled on false facts. Media spreads word of 'consensus' among so-called experts. The world believes the lie and quotes it freely, as a University of Colorado commenter does here.

We believe a lie when it's all that we hear and when it is repeated often enough. Too bad it’s not true. Among those in the know, we look like fools lured to imbibe the climate Kool Aid while some face the music and admit suspicion on the story.

Those fools include the general public, which relies on repeating the lies that pass for news by mainstream media. Those without scientific backgrounds have no choice but to believe the pundits, who too have no background in science. Pundits in turn get their data from favored sources despite that the data cannot be trusted for being manipulated, cajoled, and cherry-picked to produce the desired global warming picture.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've been had on global warming.

 

A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

 

How nice.... you posted the same old fabricated chart for the billionth time. Don't your have some NEW material to contribute instead of the same old debunked nonsense over and over again?

 

Let's see what the Forbes article has to say about Cook's debunked study... here are the sections with the quotes from scientists stating that Cook was lying about the classification of their papers.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

 

That's odd, I just did a copy and paste of one of YOUR posts.

So which one was "dumbest most useless"? Mine or yours?

 

It is no longer the "consensus’ position on global warming" when less than 50% of scientists support it!

 

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html



"One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number."

 

Oh wow what a surprise, another paid by the Koch bros denialist propaganda machine website brought to you by the fossil fuel interests.

You guys are such gullible idiots.