Science's Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare

[cc]

Exposing the BIG Lie !!![/url]  



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-10887%2C_Parade_der_Reichswehr.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-10887%2C_Parade_der_Reichswehr.jpg">



On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.



"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists' views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."



The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.



The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.



So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.



Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.



See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).



But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.



The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.



https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337126632080957441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E337126632080957441&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftrending%2Flibertarian-group-demands-nasa-remove-false-97-percent-consensus-global-warming-claim%2F">https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/3 ... g-claim%2F">https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337126632080957441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E337126632080957441&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftrending%2Flibertarian-group-demands-nasa-remove-false-97-percent-consensus-global-warming-claim%2F



Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers.



 Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the  50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.



The study — (and the ludicrous and disingenuously "cooked" 97 percent figure that depends on it) — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.

[Anonymous]

I'm not surprised cc.

[Anonymous]

I have read too many climate scientists views that contradicted the IPCC to fall for that 97% figure.

[Gaon]

I thought the 97 % number was the answer to the question is man contributing in any way, and even if only in a small way to a changing climate.

[Anonymous]

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium_large/public/blog/smoking%20gun.jpg?itok=_V395C6P">

[Anonymous]

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium_large/public/blog/smoking%20gun.jpg?itok=_V395C6P">

 

[cc]

I thought the 97 % number was the answer to the question is man contributing in any way, and even if only in a small way to a changing climate.

Don't think so. I doubt there is any one of any credibility that would not concede "some" effect .. even if only temporary and / or repairable by nature. You could get an "honest" 100 % on that I would think



See purple gun smoke for example  of "temporary and / or repairable by nature" ac_biggrin



I detest the whole climate thing. No matter what we do at great expense, it would change nothing ... as China, India, Russia etc keep pouring it out ... so dumb we are .. as politicians use it to  try to get us to give them more and more control over us .. with zero gain for us

[Anonymous]

I thought the 97 % number was the answer to the question is man contributing in any way, and even if only in a small way to a changing climate.

Don't think so. I doubt there is any one of any credibility that would not concede "some" effect .. even if only temporary and / or repairable by nature. You could get an "honest" 100 % on that I would think



See purple gun smoke for example  of "temporary and / or repairable by nature" ac_biggrin



I detest the whole climate thing. No matter what we do at great expense, it would change nothing ... as China, India, Russia etc keep pouring it out ... so dumb we are .. as politicians use it to  try to get us to give them more and more control over us .. with zero gain for us

Does nature contribute in anyway to climate change? That is a question to which we could get a unanimous yes if it was asked of all climate scientists.



The other thing that is nuts are the so called solutions. Transferring wealth(carbon taxes) to preferred companies so they can create an artificial need for useless alternatives like wind and solar that leave us totally dependent on China instead of energy independence we have now.I believe man is contributing to a changing climate, but we approach it the same way we did with acid rain in the 80's. Scrubbing technologies that already exist that stop C02 from being released into the atmosphere. We have Canadian technology now that can take C02 out of the atmosphere and recycle it into gas into hydrocarbons to make diesel, gasoline and natural gas. We would not have to retrofit our entire way of life at a cost in the trillions of dollars. But, even then if we take C02 out of the atmosphere, I doubt we can really reverse climate change. But, the alarmists tell us if we continue to rob the average citizen in a country like Canada with 1.6 per cent of global emissions the planet will cool.

[Anonymous]